CDE CONTINUES HIS CAMPAIGN TO ENLIGHTEN THE INTELLECTUALLY IMPOVERISHED, WHO MAY BE OBAMACARE TROLLS!!!

As other readers of RNL may have noticed in the last six weeks, there have appeared, like the five wizards of Middle Earth, a number of posters on Facebook and other sites who appear to be posting extremely clever graphics in support of Our Dear Leader’s multitude of failing projects, with Obamacare being the most common focus of their efforts. When confronted with contrary comments, these posters are much less articulate than the verbiage in their original posts, and their arguments are not just weak but often completely inarticulate. The contrast between the cleverly worded but false original posts and their extremely weak and often ad hominem attacks on comments that point out the absurdities of their ideas has caused me to ponder whether we are witnessing the emergence of paid shills blogging on the Organizing for Action payroll or employees of the Obamacare propaganda fund. When I have confronted several of these characters, my initial posts raised the questions have disappeared with no answer, and when I have followed up, I have been accused of everything from racism to hating puppies and being mean!!! Following below is my half of a recent exchange with a troll who posted a photo of something that looked like downtown Detroit, when it still existed and labeled, “This is what future of America would look like in a Libertarian world.” As one committed to the finding and rescue of the lost sheep, my highly educational, and exceptionally kind, post is provided below.

Edward: You do appear to be a completely airheaded Liberal/Progressive loon, who may be on the Organizing for Action payroll, or is it the Obamacare propaganda budget.. No sentient American citizen could possibly post so many really absurd things unless someone were paying him or her to do so. I usually just chortle at your tripe, but since I am a longtime libertarian, and you appear to know nothing about libertarianism, I’ll attempt to shine a brief light into the darkness of your ignorance.

For starters, the photo you posted is actually from the People’s Republic of Detroit, where Liberal/Progressive governments and union corruption have held sway for over 100-years. That is what a city looks like that is established on really stupid ideas and run with graft and corruption, two Liberal specialties. By the way, US taxpayers have already lost over $10MM on Our Dear Leader’s illegal GM bailout, and it appears GM will be back in Bankruptcy Court within 5-years. Let me know how that great Liberal/Progressive “victory” works out.

On the issue of what a libertarian America would look like, I must immediately debunk the whole premise, since libertarianism is a movement of ideas, not of political aspirations. We generally align with the Conservatives who are gradually gaining control of the GOP, since our ideas and policies are at the core of Conservative thought as well. We believe in the Founders’ principles of individual freedom, free markets and limited government, all of which are actively opposed by Our Dear Leader and his Liberal/Progressive sycophants. As usual with people of your ilk, you fail to understand that the goal of libertarianism, as of America’s Founders, is that all Americans should prosper by exercising their own free choices in an economy that is free to provide provide opportunities for all American citizens. Government, which demonstrates its incompetence every day, with Obamacare being the most obvious example, needs to play a minimally intrusive role in the lives of American citizens, and government coercion should be limited to enforcing legal contracts, preventing one citizen from illegally coercing another and possibly maintaining a basic infrastructure.

As with all Liberal/Progressives, you confuse means and ends, although why anyone does that has always been unclear to me. While concern for the poor and disabled is important to libertarians, and always has been, we understand that government has been singularly ineffective at helping the poor escape their poverty rather than adopting it as an intergenerational lifestyle choice. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, whose bad policies brought about and then extended America’s Great Depression, intentionally destroyed the private sector social safety net that had been in place since our nation’s birth and that had been described by De Tocqueville in the 1840’s in his brilliant study DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. They did this to shift economic resources from the private sector to the Federal government. They failed miserably. Later LBJ declared his “War On Poverty,” a war that he, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter managed to lose. Barack Hussein Obama has pursued to same old, tired and never productive policies and he is producing the same disastrous results.

Libertarians accept that society, not government, since those two institutions are not the same, has a duty to help the poor escape poverty and to begin to lead productive lives in the private sector. We reject utterly the notion that government should enable and support a lifestyle of government dependence and intergenerational failure. That is what Liberal/Progressivism is all about…the creation of an intergenerational government dependence supported by constant transfers of income and assets from the working people and business owners of America to those who have chosen “poverty” as a lifestyle. Only the private sector creates value. The government is a net spender of America’s assets and a drag on our economy. The social safety net required in America is most effectively supplied by the private sector, who are already paying for it, but are watching government spend our tax money to preserve its own political power. Washington, Jefferson and Madison all warned against factions in government whose only goal would be the preservation and expansion of their own power. As in many things, our brilliant Founders had that right!!! CDE

133 thoughts on “CDE CONTINUES HIS CAMPAIGN TO ENLIGHTEN THE INTELLECTUALLY IMPOVERISHED, WHO MAY BE OBAMACARE TROLLS!!!”

As usual, brilliantly written, sir. I don’t have much to add on to in regards to your thoughts, since posting this response to RNL is most likely preaching to the choir (save two loons and one devout Marxist). However, I have noticed a very subtle trend in political discussion amongst progressive analysts, in which I first started to take notice of it around the last election season when Ron Paul was gaining some momentum (at least among those single-minded issue young Libertarian voters; I can’t speak for the more organic and expansive minded libertarians such as yourself).The trend appears to a diversionary tactic (which in reality is textbook red herring fallacy), where the libertarian card is subtly shuffled into the conservative deck of cards. From here, progressive commentators will critique libertarian ideas based off of their interpretation of conservative ideas. Consequently, libertarian ideas are viewed as instead of being a whole unique philosophy in itself, to an extension of the “Tea Party terror” machine. I can’t imagine that this diversionary reasoning is anything new, but in the progressive newspeak, “libertarian” means the same exact think as “conservative”. In the case of that photo and caption, the juxtaposition of the word “libertarian”, is most likely an attempt to further discredit Republicans, conservatives, and the Tea Party. The logic is that it also discredits libertarian ideas. A cunning progressive would use such a tactic as the “two birds with one stone tactic” to discredit both camps of thought. You must stay vigilant in educating the intellectually impoverished, thus preserving the virtuous libertarian ideas, lest they become lost somewhere in the never ending throes between liberals and conservatives.

A word of caution, my friend. One CAN attack the ‘Libertarian label’ using Left-wing critiques of “conservatism,” BUT, at the same time, one can also attack it using Right-wing critiques of the liberal/progressive. This is the problem with “Libertarianism:” it encompasses much, MUCH more than the “live-and-let-live” ideal that so many want to assign it. Many times — sadly, I fear the majority of the time — people who claim to be “Libertarians” are actually liberal/progressives who want their ideas forced on others, they just want to be exempted from those laws. Think of it as a moral argument that allows the “Liberal” to claim equality with those in power who exempt themselves from the law. It doesn’t work, but it is the best they can do at making a “Classic Liberal” claim to individual rights and liberty while still embracing their socialist desires. And it is why the “Libertarian label” and RIGHTLY be attacked from both sides.

I Urge you to re-aquaint yoursef with the Recent Cuccinelli election in Virginia for Governor. Here the Libertarian Candidate CLEARLY indicated his supports for numerous Liberal Spending policies. Both Rand Paul and Ron Paul were in the State “Yelling Loudly” that the Virginia Libertarian Candidate was NOT what both Paul’s call Libertarian. They both urged Libertarians to vote FOR Cuccinelli and AGAINST the Libertariann Candidate.

Thus in this Case Libertarian morphed Easily and unfortunately effectively into LIBERAL……and the Liberal Libertarians vote the Socialist / Democrat in…..either directly or by voting for the Libertarian.

What you mention is a Great Observation…… but the Larger Strategy of the Libertarians is as a Foil to interrupt any and ALL Conservative-TP ot Republican election……by changing at whim to match the need of different elections. THIS is what has to begin to being said about Libertarians…….Loudly and at every opportunity we (you) have. Because AT THIS POINT they are effectively a Destructive force……

Good point — so long as one does not make the mistake of thinking “Conservative” means “Classic Liberal,” instead. Remember, our labels do not work anymore, and it is because of the way the language has been deliberately undermined.

Some who use the Term Conservative ( as the TP and other Constitutional GRPs do) mean it as a Term for fiscal responsibility and adherence to the Rule of Law via the Original Constitional / Bill of Rights. These do not now view themselves as GOP necessarily.

Others use it to denote Standard Business as usual RINO GOP.

BUT …. the Establishment GOP itself is in an ongoing Campaign to Denegrate the “Term” and the TP-Conservative Groups and Christian Groups.and individuals who DO believe in the Constitution……SO …. the term itself is being surgically removed from the GOP BY THE socalled “Moderate” Establishment RINO GOP itself…… SO the Term Conservative is standing more and more on its own as DISTINCT from BOTH *Liberals-Libertarians* and from *Establishment Republicans* .

To a point, yes, I can agree with that. But I would argue the TEA Party is the Party most acceptable to hate, and the TEA Party is not what I would call “Conservative.” I have said it before and will say it again: the “Conservative” attempt to co-opt the TEA Party brand is largely responsible for the trouble the TEA Party now finds itself in. Were the TEA Party to loudly divorce itself from the Republican/Conservative label, its numbers would probably start to grow again.

And do not forget that the Right-Wing Progressives in the Republican Party are STILL trying to ‘re-define’ the term “Conservative.”

The Republican Party IS NOT Conservative……The Mainstream GOP doesn’t want EITHER the Tea Party NOR the Conservatives in their party.

Conservative simply means adhering to ( Conserving of ) the ORIGINAL Political Ideology of the Country. In American that means wanting to adhere to the ORIGINAL Constitutional Republic.
In the Soviet Union conservative would mean wanting to adhere to the precepts of the Original “Internationale Socialist Platform” and the Leniist application of it circa 1918-1922. The “Liberals” in the Soviet case were those wanting to “Change” the system…..the Yeltsins and his supporters who looked beyond Perestroika and Glasnost to a more Pure form of Representative Democray…..Putin and his crowd of course formed their own “Counter-Revoluti”on” to the Yeltsin Rev. which took Russia back to a more Soviet way….though not completely YET.

In 1776 “Conservatives” were those who wanted to KEEP King George and his band of Merry Parlimentary Thieves in power. The “Liberals” ( Classical Liberals as you so excellently articulate) were those who wanted to “Change” the system and the course of Individual-Governmental power relationship……. in other words supplant Liberty for Tyranny.

Today “Liberals” are those who advocate CHANGING America’s founding Principles….as with the Constitution being a “living Document”….and their predilection for advocating “laws” which tell everyone what they can and cannot do and how they must live their lives. As such the modern “Liberals” are a Counter-revolutionary force acting in direct attack on the Political Structure as Framed…in order to Change it Entirely.

Today, as I mentioned, “Conservatives” are those who want to PRESERVE the Constitution/Bill of Rights as written and intended…… devoid of “Interpretation” by self-appointed Academic and Media and Liberal/Progressive “authorities.

The GOP Establishment is down with the modern “Liberals” because the Changes enacted make them (1) richer and (2) more powerful. But the error is in equating “Conservative” with this ensconced ( George Bush ) crowd. Conservatives ARE NOT of this crowd…..and those that are, and use the Term to self-identify….are in fact NOT Conservative….because they are for ….”Compormise” on the Founders most basic principles.

1st, you just pushed away the 30-37% of those people who were Democrats and/or Independents. You will NEVER get a political majority that way, but I agree: what you are doing is very “conservative” — as defined by the current leadership.

The TEA Party is not and was NEVER “Conservative.” It had nothing in common with the “Conservatives” EXCEPT the economic ideal of limited government. In that sense, it was and is more closely aligned with Ron Paul and HIS brand of Libertarianism. Read the data on the TEA Party and you’ll find this to be true.

Finally, the “Conservative” movement in this country is as far removed from the founders as the Libertarian movement. The “Conservative” embrace of corporations, the military and law-and-order ALL fly in the face of our founders’ beliefs.

You didn’t read what I said closely. Yes the TP had close ties with True Conservatism as I defined …. not just the Limited Government Ideal but a return to the Constitution….. both of those are pillars of the TP movement as I understand it.

2nd I clearly distinguished between the George Bush crowd who “Call” themselves Conservative but advocate Corporate Welfare etc…….thus by definition they ARE NOT true Conservatives.

My Definition is decidedly NOT conservative defined by the current leadership….what I am saying is called EXTREME by that leadership.

The 30-37% who would be pushed away by what I described….Basically returning to the Constituion….ie Conserving our Constitutional Republic as Founded are not any friends of the Republic if what you say is true.

Finally it is perhaps because that 30-37% is affected by the on-slaught of Hate-Speech against Conservatives waged Day-in and Day-out by the Press and Media and the GOP leadership and the Democrat Leadership. They are being told from all sources who they are to Hate and they are to HATE CONSERVATIVES.

You yourself have an almost visceral reaction to them as well. So you are in good company. Finally, I was very clear as to what defines Conservatism today. And McCain ad Nauseum do not the Conservative Movement make no matter what they claim for political expediency.

“Conservative” has a definition, and you gave it earlier. It means to hold the status quo. In this sense, what you now assert — founding ideals — is NOT “Conservatism,” but a reactionary movement. You no longer have original intent to hold on to. We lost that a long time ago. So to claim the conservative movement, which is trying to hold to the Progressive Republican gains since Teddy Roosevelt, is the same thing as the founders’ original intent is to redefine the term “conservative.”

It escapes me why so many have so much trouble with this point. If you adhere to the founders ideals, then do so. But do not try to morph a term into something it is not. BY DEFINITION, Obama and the Progressives are more “conservative” than the TEA Party is. But you and others keep trying to claim the definition of the term by trying to force your will on it. Don, read how BURKE defined it and THAT is what it means.

Trapp,

See why I say we need to get a common understanding of issues hammered out before we can move forward? 🙂

No. To “Hold the Status Quo” is what the Progressives and Establishment RINOs are all about. And It is at one of the Polar Opposites from what True Conservatism stands for.

The definition I gave was SPECIFICALLY about a Nations Political structure.
In America’s case it means to Conserve the Original Founding Constitutional Republic…..sans all the monkeying around that has happened through the Supreme Court and the Unconstitutional establishment of Endless quasi-Gov’t agencies like the Dept of Education, OSHA, EPA, IRS etc.

And it’s expression today ( Conservatism that is) is of nessessity of the form of a RE_ESTABLISHMENT of the Original Republic…..hence calls for the repeal of the 17th Amendment and Books like the Liberty Amendments etc…

fascisti: I have found that while my American Conservative friends share all of what I regard as the core beliefs of my personal libertarian philosophy, a number of troubling issues are emerging at the national level that will require wisdom and some guile in order to defeat the Progressives in 2014 and 2016. First, a word about who libertarians really are today. Although we make no claim to exclusivity, libertarians trace our understandings back to America’s Founders and beyond. True libertarians share three critical values that are enshrined in the greatest political documents ever written and implemented… the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights. Our core tenets are individual freedom, free trade and limited government. The four greatest economists in history, Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, and Milton Friedman, were all libertarians in both their economic and political philosophies. The libertarian economic system, as practiced intermittently throughout American history, is the only national economic system that has ever produced a better quality of life for all of a nation’s citizens. And individual freedom and effective economics are at the heart of today’s libertarianism.

Our differences with our American Conservative brethren, who also trace their movement to our Founders, are really about the limits of individual freedom and the proper role for the Federal government in enforcing a prescriptive morality that often overrides the individual citizen’s freedom of choice in his or her own life. We libertarians believe that the standard by which every individual citizen’s freedom should be limited should be where it begins to impinge on the freedom of another citizen. The greatest conflict between libertarians and American Conservatives in recent years has probably over the issue of an individual’s right to consume recreational drugs, particularly marijuana, if he or she is an adult who is capable of making that decision for him or herself. Libertarians view this as an individual’s right to use or not use drugs, as long as that use does not place others in danger or impede their ability to exercise their own rights. We see this position as essential to preserving the broader freedoms of religion, assembly, speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure by the government, and related rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.

The loss of individual freedoms is a slippery slope and we think the government has no authority to restrict any individual who has not already broken the law from making his or her own choices. While there are others far more informed of the core beliefs of American Conservatives, and they are likely to “correct” this comment no matter what I write, I will briefly summarize what I view as the one area of conflict between libertarians like me and American Conservatives like my good friends Joe and Don. Conservatives in America follow the thinking of the great Edmund Burke and Joe’s hero John Adams, in stating that society has a duty to restrict the individual freedom of some American citizens in order to maintain a set of moral standards that are consistent with the Anglo American traditions and laws. That is a well reasoned and reasonable idea, but as a libertarian my fear in this area is that politicians who enjoy the power of government coercion may not always honor the Anglo American traditions and laws and may choose to replace those traditions with another form of law, like for example, Sharia Law. Hence we libertarians feel the need to prevent any government from acting in place of God’s law and of the personal decisions of individual American citizens, within the strictures I discussed above. I refer to this as a preemptive protection against tyranny, and I believe that it has become even more necessary under Our Dear Leader and his minions, who I have concluded have as their ultimate goal the destruction of American society, culture and belief systems.

My biggest concern as we approach the 2014 bi-elections is that libertarians and American Conservatives will be turned against each other, which could allow Progressives to win elections which should destroy the Progressive Movement for a generation. As a movement rather than political party, and the “Libertarian Party” while well intentioned is a bad idea, Libertarians suffer from an inconsistent public image and unreliable communication channels. We have basic information sources on websites, REASON Magazine, and think-tanks like Cato Institute and the Manhattan Institute, but the limited infrastructure we enjoy is dominated by the Libertarian Party group, who while nice and committed people do not enjoy widespread support in the libertarian community. Hence when an Obama campaign bundler funded a false flag candidate in the Virginia governor’s race, we were unable to inform the substantial libertarian community there about what was happening despite the best efforts of the Pauls, and other high profile libertarians, as well as writers and bloggers like myself. The Progressive strategy worked and Terry McAuliffe, a frequent unindicted co-conspirator and Progressive bagman, is now governor of an important state. Had libertarians stayed with the Conservative/GOP candidate, Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP would have held the Virginia governorship. Libertarians probably comprise 4 – 5% of registered voters, which will be enough to decide numerous Congressional elections in 2014 and the Presidency in 2016. We need to prepare for the Progressives’ false flag strategy to be repeated all over the US.

Finally, I’d like to set things straight about the relationship of actual libertarians and the Progressive Movement. We despise each other because everything libertarians believe in is under attack by Progressives constantly. We believe in the centrality of individual freedom, while Progressives constantly pass laws that subordinate individual rights to some ill-defined, Orwellian entity they call “the people” or the “good of the nation.” The “people” such as they exist, are the sum of all the individual citizens of the United States and anything that restricts individual freedom, including Obamacare, cannot be good for all of those individual citizens taken together. This is pure Marxist/Alinskyite propaganda. This is an insurmountable difference between libertarians and Progressives. We believe in the power and the preservation of free markets, because they have been proven over and over to be the only effective economic system for America. Progressives believe in government control of the private economy, which is a Fascist position, with the eventual goal being a government owned economy, which is pure Marxism. This is not surprising, since Progressivism is merely the American label for Marxist ideology. Progressives’ agenda is to reduce to size and influence of the private economy, while moving America’s productive capacity to the public, governmental sector, which of course has never worked anywhere, at anytime, at least on this planet. Finally, libertarians have as our goal the reduction of government interference in the lives of American citizens, while Progressives think every problem should have a government solution and that economic and business decisions should be made by Central Planners, a la the wretched Communist Soviet Union. “Central Planning” is an idea sold by foolish ideologues to weak-minded subjects, who then enjoy shared misery while the Nomenklatura parties down!!!

T o conclude with the words of Jesus of Nazareth, “Not all who call unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of Heaven!” In this case, not everyone who calls him or herself a “Libertarian” is necessarily a libertarian. Anyone who calls him or herself a “Progressive Libertarian” is a “Progressive” probably looking to sound cool, since we libertarians are the original cool dudes. Anyone calling him or herself a “Libertarian Conservative” knows not about which he or she speaks. Please consult Hayek’s essay, “Why I Am Not A Conservative” for a full explanation. Anyone who calls him or herself a “Libertarian Republican” should be examined closely before accepting the label. It is my own position is that libertarians should avoid ongoing affiliation with a permanent political party, since we are a movement of ideas, and political parties have an unfortunate willingness to compromise ideas in order to retain or gain power. I understand the thinking of Ron and Rand Paul, who I support, and other libertarians who have chosen to work within the GOP, since the Progressives now own the once proud Democrat Party of Andrew Jackson. But I think Libertarian Republicans are on dangerous ground and will need to remain constantly vigilant. I hope this comment has shed some light on the position of libertarians in America today, because I think libertarians and American Conservatives will need to find and maintain common ground to defeat our common Progressive enemies. Cheers, CDE

You just hit on the heart of the problem — the reason Libertarianism fails and always will fail. You reject any attempt to legislate morality. Our founders tried this. It was called the Articles of Confederation. Look where that got them.

Unless and until “Libertarians” come to understand that ALL law is the legislation of morality, their core belief system will continue to be rejected by those who do understand this. Our founders said that a free and self-governing society MUST be grounded in morality (they also said that all morality comes from God, which is another problem for the average Libertarian). So, this issue at hand is not whether or not one can legislate morality, but what moral laws should be enforced. This is where the Conservative holds higher ground than the Libertarian as the average Conservative is more in line with Natural Law than the average Libertarian.

Now, I KNOW you are sophisticated enough in your understanding to see my point. Sadly, the average member of the Libertarian rank-and-file is not — and you know this to be true as well. So, deal with this issue successfully (something our founders could not do) and you will have the winning recipe. BUT, unless and until you do so, the way back toward individual rights and liberty is “Classic Liberalism” (and not conservatism either, sorry to my conservative friends, but that is also true).

Joe: As much as I respect you, you always lose me on this point. Libertarians are doing just fine in terms of our goals, which are to influence American policies by reconnecting them with those of the Founders, and in the process return America to her Classical Anglo American Liberal roots. No right-minded libertarian would ever seek political office as a libertarian, because at our core we agree with President Reagan and Milton Friedman, the creator of “Reaganomics, that ” government is not the solution to America’s problems, government is the problem. And I at least do not see our libertarian sense of the centrality of individual freedom as likely to ever be implemented on a national scale, because of certain characteristics of human nature, which religious folks like yourself would probably attribute to Original Sin (Roman Catholicism) or human depravity (John Calvin and many others, including John Adams’ and my own Puritan ancestors).

One concern I sometimes have with libertarian colleagues in this area is that, because most members of the real libertarian community are rather bright, extremely rational and not prone to lives of crime, we may underestimate the reality of evil and evil human beings. I am not so prone to that error, largely as a result of growing up as I did, but we libertarians may tend to overestimate the rational capacity of society as a whole because we tend to interact a lot with each other and within that circle, our expansive expectations of the individual’s capacity for rationality may be realistic, while in the wider population they are not. By the way, libertarians do not believe in the perfectibility of human beings that is so central to Progressive thought. We just think that individual American citizens are more likely to make good decisions for themselves than are Progressive bureaucrats in the Federal government, and we think history confirms our theory. We are unlikely to ever have the opportunity to implement our theory, but we recognize the complete bankruptcy of Progressive/Marist/Fascist thinking in this and as a result we are likely to align ourselves with the party that has a chance to interrupt the Progressives march toward the destruction of everything we hold dear. That will certainly be my course of action and I believe many of my libertarian colleagues are likely to take the same course. So practical realities are likely to place us on the same side in the growing conflict that will hopefully remove the cancer of Progressivism for at least a generation. One can only hope! CDE

Like I said, you understand the problems with the “Libertarian” ideology with regards to any attempt to apply it to society 🙂

I will not say I disagree with anything you just said, though I am confused as to why I lose you. I am not looking for a nationally enforced moral law. I am not even looking for a moral law in line with Natural law — as our founders did. yes, I see that as the most functional choice, but i agree with the founders: every community should be allowed to set and enforce its own standards. That means every community should be allowed to legislate its own moral standards.

Now, this is in keeping with our founders thinking, but it is not very welcomed in the Libertarian circles I’ve been connected with (and there have been more than a few). Individually, the Libertarian ideal is best, I’ll give you that. but society is NOT an individual. And when people are brought together, the social dynamic changes them. It is that dynamic that government is created to deal with, and it is that dynamic that is most difficult for the Libertarian ideal to answer — and for all the reasons you just listed.

STILL, this does NOT make you and I and the “Conservatives” enemies. We have more in common with each other than we do with the Left, and I agree that these common interests are where we should come together. It’s just that this still leaves a tough hill to climb, even for friendly ideologies 🙂

The Hill at present is defined Legislatively and behind that with the authority of Government Guns.

THIS is why what you say about morality is so important…..which If I am interpreting you correctly is merely what the Founders said about out Constitutional Republic being Predicated upon a “just and Moral people “.

In many regards I do not see how the Founders and Libertarianism mesh. In many ways Libertarianism seems to be a kind of twisted logic that Forbids Social Morality almost as axiomatic. And as such is almost quasi-religious ( in a Secular humanist way).

But perhaps I haven’t been given the Secret decoder ring to interpret it correctly … :- ) .

The Anti-Federalists would most likely identify very closely with TRUE Libertarians: men such as the Pauls and even CDE, here. The problem is that the accusation of Liberals ‘hiding’ within the Libertarian movement is very accurate and THAT is where the founders would part ways with the movement.

My loose interpretation of the Anti-Federalists ( of which I find myself more in alignment the more I read ) is that they would be arguing for a more “pure” interpretation of the term “anarchy”….in that its more pure form states that **there is no higher SECULAR authority than the individual**. ( As their recognition of Divine providenence being paramount in men and women’s lives as well as in the Social life of a Society).

Where they differed, or perhaps tempored, this faith in the Individual as ultimate legitimate authority was in the recognition that Unified Social Structure was necessary in order to actually PRESERVE the authority of the individual over his earth-bound Natural Rights……..Thus the FORM the Government took was vital to this preservation…..Hence the Bill of Rights being added …hence the 2nd form of Amendment process encapsulated within Article 5 of the Constitution etc…

As I understand the thoughts of our founders (and finer points ot this issue)…BINGO!

You just explained it — and the primary reason the modern “Libertarian” movement does not work in political terms. Where the founders understood they HAD to move LEFT to preserve SOCIETY (and thus, rights and liberty), the “Libertarian” wants to move further RIGHT — toward Anarchy.

Just to be clear, when you say “every community should be allowed to legislate it’s own moral standards” are you referring to any community that adheres to a standard of virtue, such as the standards we are concerned with maintaining here on the RNL; or are you referring to any standard period, that falls under the framework of any given morality (including immorality)? I live in the Seattle area, and this community definitely adheres to it’s share of immoral values. Granted hat we are brethren under the name of our Lord, we understand the standards or morality according to scripture. However, elitists such as SBJ, Melfamy, or Karl, would immediately move to advocate a progressive standard of morality based most likely in hedonism or nihilism. My second question would be, given that our founders were both men who feared God and disciplined to reason, would the legislation of progressive moral standards fall under that same provision?

I would argue that those communities that wish to set a moral code OUTSIDE of Natural Law should still be allowed to do so — to the extent that they can do so within the confines of the State/Federal Constitutions. I do not believe the founders would have disagreed with this. It goes along with the principle of majority rule. And where the community wishes to set a oral code outside Natural Law, it will not stand for long. That community will eventually fail because of its rebellion to the Natural Order of things. The key is to NOT ALLOW outside support of that community. It must be allowed to fail.

Now, if one doubts that the founders would have shared/agreed with this approach, consider the TRUE intention of the 3/5ths clause. It was to force the South to eventually deal with the consequences of their moral code, which was clearly outside that of Natural Law — and it worked. Jefferson clearly explained that the South would eventually have to deal with the immorality of slavery or God would judge it (and the nation). This is what he was talking about in the quote that is on his memorial in D.C.

This is the best answer I can give according to my understanding of the founders and the issue of Natural Law. I hope it helps.

Politically the 3/5ths clause was to deny the South Representation in their populace. It automatically reduced that portion of the Population that was Black by 40%….thus Congressional Representation by this group would be undermined and it would lesson the Power the Southern states had.

Read what the founders said. Read what Frederick Douglas said about it. The 3/5ths clause GUARANTEED that the South would either have to free the slaves or slowly become dominated by the North due to nothing more than representation. As with most things they did, it was more brilliance by the founders. Only, this time, it was the abolitionists who laid the trap for the slave owners — and it worked.

With respect to this…” No right-minded libertarian would ever seek political office as a libertarian,…”.

I really do have to ask. If what you say is true…..or rather if many right minded Libertarians sincerely believe this, then why do they engage in Political life at ALL. Even at its most pedestrian level….. that of the vote franchise ??

Don: Good question, but there is a pretty solid answer. Just as Justice Jackson said the Constitution is not a suicide pact, libertarians understand that the US is as close as there has ever been to a nation practicing libertarian principles. All of the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights are things that libertarians believe should the rights of the citizens of any country, but America is the only nation on earth that promises to protect those rights in its governing documents. So we view the protection of the Constitution, the Declaration and the Bill of Rights as our highest priority vis a vis the Federal government. To effectively protect those freedoms necessarily winning elections to keep the heathen Liberal/Progressives out of control of our government. Obama is Exhibit A for why elections are important and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are B and C. Just as my Quaker ancestors decided they needed to set aside their own beliefs and fight for Washington and Lincoln, real libertarians are not political pacifists because we can’t be. Too much is at stake. Hope that helps, CDE

Don: The analogy I was drawing, apparently ineffectively, was that just like Justice Jackson stated the Constitution is not a suicide pact, libertarians’ beliefs in limited government cannot cause us to stay out of the political process and allow our enemies, the Liberal/Progressives, to gain and maintain power and dismantle the freedoms we value so highly. Hope that helps. CDE

No… I meant the Quote itself….in other words, What exactly was Jackson saying or refering to in his quote about the Constitution. Because within the Quote is the “meat of the matter”…..is where we either “Meet” as minds with concomittant goals or not.

What exactly was he arguing for or against WRT the Constitution ??…..one of those..Uhhmmm “Compromise” thingies per-chance ??

Not sure how CDE meant it, but I believe the quote in question originally meant that the States were not bound to follow the majority over a cliff into ruin. The founders concurred, saying that the States retained the right to secede — should they deem it necessary.

Hi augger: You have hit on one of my real concerns with this issue. Once government has the power to coerce American citizens to do or not do anything, there is nothing to prevent the Feds from deciding everyone should really worship in gay-friendly churches or not eat meat or that we must send our kids to public, residential schools and see them once a year…anything becomes possible and virtually impossible to prevent. In the Christian church Reformed theology came about, with its bicameral structure in its churches, and checks and balances on Executive power, because there were no effective checks in the RC hierarchy. So the church invented Purgatory and then sold “Get Out of Jail Free Cards,” known as indulgences and a host of other schemes. To me the Federal government under Obama has demonstrated that it can’t be trusted to enforce the nation’s Constitution or laws, and that it is willing to make new laws via Executive Fiat. So when the Federal government begins introducing Sharia Law, we will have given them the power to do so. Better we should leave most moral choices in the hands of the individual citizens affected by the decision, rather than giving more power to a potential tyrant. Better the potential problem than a known autocrat. CDE

That is because the Left tries to legislate a man-made idea of morality; one that is not rooted in Natural Law. If you try to impose laws contrary to the natural order, though you may keep your plates spinning for a short while, they WILL come crashing down. Keynesian economics is a perfect example. And so it is with the Left’s moral ideal of anything goes — unless I do not like it.

1. Labels are often confusing. “American Conservatives” are not Conservative in the usual sense. A/C/M is about conserving the values of the Founders, not the current status quo. Progressivism was a creeping malignancy throughout most of the 20th century, and neither American Conservatives nor libertarians want to conserve that.

2. It appears we will continue to differ about the level of control the Federal government should exercise over our personal decisions, which is fine. I am willing to accept the notion that laws are required to prevent crimes by one citizen against another, but I am unwilling to give the Feds control over my decisions that don’t affect other American citizens. That doesn’t matter all that much because I’m not King Canute and I can’t command the Federal tsunami from trying to take away my personal freedom, but I will never accept the idea.

3. A small point, but children and those who are incapable of making serious decisions should not be accorded the same individual freedoms as adults. I view that as common sense, and it has a long history in most cultures.

4. No one has “control” over who calls themselves a libertarian and that will probably continue. The individual freedom issue being so large for us means no one can enforce a complete set of beliefs for the movement. I use a basic set of three core principles to tell myself if someone is actually a libertarian…individual freedom, free markets and limited government. If someone does not accept those values, that person can call himself anything he or she wants, I will not regard him or her as a movement libertarian. I may choose to explain that to the person, but that depends how much I think that person will listen. I don’t cast my pearls before swine, as a rule.

5. There is no common ground between libertarians and Liberal/Progressives. We believe the individual and the family are the basic organizing unit in American society and individual freedom is every American citizen’s right. Liberal/Progressives believe everything should be done to benefit a vague group they call “the people,” or the “good of the people,” or “American society.” What that really means is privileged groups within American society that the Progressive elites select. In Soviet Russia these groups were called the “nomenklatura,” who lived very well while most Russians waited in long lines for hours to purchase a small amount of stale bread. That is where the US would go under long-term Progressive control of our government. Progressivism is the antithesis of libertarianism, which is an indisputable fact. You are free to state otherwise, but you will be wrong when you do.

6. “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you,” is a direct quote from Hillel, which I think is a bit more clear than Jesus’ comparable quote, “Do unto other others as you would have them do unto you.” I don’t need to have others guessing what I want them to do to me, since I don’t want them doing anything to me, thank you very much. Either way it is called the “Golden Rule,” and it has nothing to do with Marxism. Christianity, Judaism, and libertarianism, yes, but I don’t know where Marx, Lenin or Obama ever proposed to handle human interactions that way.

So from my perspective, we have a lot of common ground (about 95%), libertarians are not Progressives, and it is interesting to explore our areas of difference, which I thoroughly enjoy.

1 — I have been making this point for longer than you have been posting on the RNL, and I have been catching arrows for it, myself. So, the way I see it, we share a common frustration on this point.

2 — “There is no common ground between libertarians and Liberal/Progressives”

There is the rub: many “Libertarians” consider things to be ‘victimless’ that are NOT ‘victimless.’ What’s more, our founders asserted — and I concur — that, once we form a society for the common benefit of all, we take on duties to that society. One of these duties happens to be an adherence to the community’s moral standards. This happens to be something nearly everyone I have ever known who calls themselves “Libertarian” opposes. So this is just one of those points where you and I disagree, as do you and the founders.

3 — While I agree that there is an age when a person becomes morally accountable, it is an arbitrary standard. For the majority of human history, that age has been somewhere between 8 – 13 years old. This is one of those areas of community standard that I am saying belongs in the realm of morality, yet you have stated that the govt. has no business legislating morality. So how is it you do NOT see a contradiction in your argument here?

4 — “There is no common ground between libertarians and Liberal/Progressives.”

Once again, you have just ceded Don’s point (and one of mine). I’ll say it again, you owe Don an apology.

5 — “There is no common ground between libertarians and Liberal/Progressives.”

You mean, other than faulty logic, right? Because in #4 you said anyone can be a “Libertarian,” yet here you are in #5 telling us Progressives cannot be.

CDE, this time you have made a demonstrably FALSE assertion. Marxism — it’s ideal, not as practiced — is most definitely “Libertarian” (our resident Marxist has already affirmed this statement, as did Marx, himself). What’s more, YOU have previously stated that Progressives are just “Americanized” Communists. So how is it that the Progressive has NOTHING in common with the Libertarian??? Finally, I have told you that John Stuart Mill — a LIBERTARIAN HERO — was a FABIAN SOCIALIST (i.e. cousin of Progressivism). You MUSt refute this (if you can) BEFORE you can make this denial of the Liberal/Progressive connection to Libertarianism. Otherwise, you are just practicing Progressivism: state a lie as truth and hold the line until others accept it.

6 — CDE, I suggest you have either mis-stated what Christ meant, or you are confused as to what He was saying. Christ was saying MUCH more than just don’t do something to someone you don’t want done to you. He was saying to treat others as thought they were us. That means to extend all our selfishness for our own interests to other people — the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim the Libertarian ideal to be. Christ was not telling us to mind our own business, but to make the welfare of EVERYONE our business as though they were us.

I think you fell for one of Satan’s better lies. The way you are quoting this passage from Scripture is 180- degrees opposite from what Christ was teaching. What Christ said is actually closer to the Communist ideal than that of the Libertarian — BUT IT IS NOT COMMUNIST! It’s just that too few know enough about Scripture to even have this discussion, and that includes many who call themselves “Christian.”

Now, if you will read what I have written carefully, you will note I have made a distinction between DISCIPLINED Libertarians such as yourself (those who actually know and understand their political philosophy) and the rank-and-file “Libertarian.” I have also said that the DISCIPLINED Libertarian DOES have a great deal in common with those who call themselves “Conservative,” as well as those who are “Classic Liberals.” But the problem you have is that you want to deny the large number of people who rally to the “Libertarian” banner simply because they like the pro-drug, pro-licentiousness, anti-war mantra they see in the Libertarian platform. In this regard, DON IS CORRECT!

Joe: I’m having a surprisingly active holiday season, which is great, except I’ve been enjoying this thread a lot and I’m finding I need to parachute in late at night to try and keep up. I’ll try to answer your follow-ups to my 8-theses, with apologies to Martin Luther.

1 — I have been making this point for longer than you have been posting on the RNL, and I have been catching arrows for it, myself. So, the way I see it, we share a common frustration on this point.
Joe: Yes, you’re quite right. Political titles and names are often deceptive everywhere in the world. Progressives are actually Marxists, but they’ll never admit it. One needs to compare the Obama platform to Marx’s ideas to see the overlap.

2 — “There is no common ground between libertarians and Liberal/Progressives”

There is the rub: many “Libertarians” consider things to be ‘victimless’ that are NOT ‘victimless.’ What’s more, our founders asserted — and I concur — that, once we form a society for the common benefit of all, we take on duties to that society. One of these duties happens to be an adherence to the community’s moral standards. This happens to be something nearly everyone I have ever known who calls themselves “Libertarian” opposes. So this is just one of those points where you and I disagree, as do you and the founders.
Joe: While I understand your points here, I see a semantic issue and a bit of a misunderstanding in your critique. First, I don’t know what “Libertarians” think about many things, since capital “L” libertarians tend to be those who identify with the well meaning but somewhat confused Libertarian Party. Most libertarians do not identify with any party, Libertarian or otherwise, because we adhere to the warnings delivered by Washington, Jefferson and Madison about avoiding political factions, which we read as the national political parties. You will note I rarely type libertarian with the “L” capitalized, since I identify with the libertarian movement, not the Party. But back to your points, we don’t think of individual moral decisions as crimes at all. We don’t see the government having any legitimate coercive role in controlling behavior that doesn’t injure other American citizens. If an action does hurt or have the potential to injure others, then sure, the government should exercise authority.

Your second point about “community standards” frightens me, because although I suspect you and I share common moral standards, I live in the New York City area, and I don’t regard myself as having a lot of common ground with the people who elected Sandinista Bill De Blasio. While I will tolerate De Blasio making laws that restrict my interactions with others, I am extremely uncomfortable with De Blasio implementing laws that will provide my grandchildren access to condoms and abortions without their parents’ knowledge or permission. That is true in multiple important areas, but none more than abortion, where as a libertarian I regard an unborn child as a human being from the moment of conception. That means any abortion involves depriving an American citizen, who happens to be in utero, of his or her most basic right to life. By my reasoning, which I think is unassailable, the government should be in the business of preventing abortions rather than funding them, but the “community” on the East Coast takes an unsupportable position, and by your standards I show be coerced into abiding by the “community’s” standard, which I regard as cold blooded murder. I could provide a dozen more examples, but I think you get my point…the “community’s” standards may change but mine will not. And the government or the community have no constitutional right to impose upon me and my family standards for areas where we affect no other citizens. I’m interested in your response on this issue.

3 — While I agree that there is an age when a person becomes morally accountable, it is an arbitrary standard. For the majority of human history, that age has been somewhere between 8 – 13 years old. This is one of those areas of community standard that I am saying belongs in the realm of morality, yet you have stated that the govt. has no business legislating morality. So how is it you do NOT see a contradiction in your argument here?
Joe: The age of majority will always be somewhat arbitrary and will be culturally driven. In societies that are short-lived the age of responsibility may be quite low. Technically Jewish boys and girls still become a “man” or a “woman” at their bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah, because in the Bronze Age Middle East most people lived until about 40. I don’t consider the setting of the age of majority a moral issue, but I have no problem with the community or government setting it.

4 — “There is no common ground between libertarians and Liberal/Progressives.”

Once again, you have just ceded Don’s point (and one of mine). I’ll say it again, you owe Don an apology.
Joe: I never mind apologizing when I actually make a mistake, and I remember doing so in 1976…no need since then. But seriously I don’t see where I’ve ceded anything, so please enlighten me here and I’ll respond.

5 — “There is no common ground between libertarians and Liberal/Progressives.”

You mean, other than faulty logic, right? Because in #4 you said anyone can be a “Libertarian,” yet here you are in #5 telling us Progressives cannot be.

CDE, this time you have made a demonstrably FALSE assertion. Marxism — it’s ideal, not as practiced — is most definitely “Libertarian” (our resident Marxist has already affirmed this statement, as did Marx, himself). What’s more, YOU have previously stated that Progressives are just “Americanized” Communists. So how is it that the Progressive has NOTHING in common with the Libertarian??? Finally, I have told you that John Stuart Mill — a LIBERTARIAN HERO — was a FABIAN SOCIALIST (i.e. cousin of Progressivism). You MUSt refute this (if you can) BEFORE you can make this denial of the Liberal/Progressive connection to Libertarianism. Otherwise, you are just practicing Progressivism: state a lie as truth and hold the line until others accept it.

Joe: I’ve studied every major school of economic and political thought since the Greeks and the Egyptians, and I’ve never found a more consistent or consistently logical movement than libertarianism. If I did I would change my views, but I haven’t. What I said in #5 was that anyone can call themselves a “libertarian,” just as anyone can call themselves a “Conservative,” but that doesn’t make them either. What makes someone something is what they believe, and more importantly how they live their lives. “Not everyone who calls unto me Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven,” means just what I just said, as stated by Jesus in the gospels. Not everyone who calls him or herself a Christian will necessarily be viewed as one by God the Father. That reiterated my concern about “labels” in #1.

On your statements equating libertarianism and Marxism, I answered that up above, so I’ll be brief here. Libertarians believe in the inherent worth of the individual and individual freedom, while Marxist promote a false theory of the centrality of the “people” or the “state” while eliminating individual freedoms wherever they rule. Libertarians believe in free markets and free trade while Marxists demand the state control markets and trade. Libertarians believe in limited government and private property, while Marxists demand the government own the means of production and that the government owns all property “on behalf of the proletariat, which means the elite nomenklatura own everything on behalf of themselves. No one can simultaneously hold libertarian and Marxist beliefs, because they are logical opposites. One set of beliefs denies the other. While I appreciate Karl’s contributions, he has this one wrong and by the way as a 15-year-old I held Karl’s Marxist beliefs. As my prefrontal cortex matured I put away childish things, including Marxism.

On J.S. Mill, libertarians do hold him in high regard, but we do not accept all his beliefs as correct. Mill was connected with the British Utilitarian Movement, as was his father John Mill and Jeremy Bentham, the movement’s founder. I enjoy J.S. Mills writings more than Bentham’s, which are great for insomnia, but the Utilitarians were really the first Collectivists in modern times, and libertarians reject Mills Utilitarian writings. This is not uncommon to find, as Adam Smith, who I regard as the greatest economist and another libertarian “hero” had sections within THE WEALTH OF NATIONS that should not have been there because they are inconsistent with his more cogent analyses. So bottomline on this issue is that we libertarians can accept some of a thinker’s ideas, while rejecting those that are inconsistent or incoherent, because we know what we believe and we are not bound to any thinker’s complete writings.

6 — CDE, I suggest you have either mis-stated what Christ meant, or you are confused as to what He was saying. Christ was saying MUCH more than just don’t do something to someone you don’t want done to you. He was saying to treat others as thought they were us. That means to extend all our selfishness for our own interests to other people — the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim the Libertarian ideal to be. Christ was not telling us to mind our own business, but to make the welfare of EVERYONE our business as though they were us.

I think you fell for one of Satan’s better lies. The way you are quoting this passage from Scripture is 180- degrees opposite from what Christ was teaching. What Christ said is actually closer to the Communist ideal than that of the Libertarian — BUT IT IS NOT COMMUNIST! It’s just that too few know enough about Scripture to even have this discussion, and that includes many who call themselves “Christian.”

Now, if you will read what I have written carefully, you will note I have made a distinction between DISCIPLINED Libertarians such as yourself (those who actually know and understand their political philosophy) and the rank-and-file “Libertarian.” I have also said that the DISCIPLINED Libertarian DOES have a great deal in common with those who call themselves “Conservative,” as well as those who are “Classic Liberals.” But the problem you have is that you want to deny the large number of people who rally to the “Libertarian” banner simply because they like the pro-drug, pro-licentiousness, anti-war mantra they see in the Libertarian platform. In this regard, DON IS CORRECT!

6 — CDE, I suggest you have either mis-stated what Christ meant, or you are confused as to what He was saying. Christ was saying MUCH more than just don’t do something to someone you don’t want done to you. He was saying to treat others as thought they were us. That means to extend all our selfishness for our own interests to other people — the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim the Libertarian ideal to be. Christ was not telling us to mind our own business, but to make the welfare of EVERYONE our business as though they were us.

I think you fell for one of Satan’s better lies. The way you are quoting this passage from Scripture is 180- degrees opposite from what Christ was teaching. What Christ said is actually closer to the Communist ideal than that of the Libertarian — BUT IT IS NOT COMMUNIST! It’s just that too few know enough about Scripture to even have this discussion, and that includes many who call themselves “Christian.”

Now, if you will read what I have written carefully, you will note I have made a distinction between DISCIPLINED Libertarians such as yourself (those who actually know and understand their political philosophy) and the rank-and-file “Libertarian.” I have also said that the DISCIPLINED Libertarian DOES have a great deal in common with those who call themselves “Conservative,” as well as those who are “Classic Liberals.” But the problem you have is that you want to deny the large number of people who rally to the “Libertarian” banner simply because they like the pro-drug, pro-licentiousness, anti-war mantra they see in the Libertarian platform. In this regard, DON IS CORRECT!

CDE, this time you have made a demonstrably FALSE assertion. Marxism — it’s ideal, not as practiced — is most definitely “Libertarian” (our resident Marxist has already affirmed this statement, as did Marx, himself). What’s more, YOU have previously stated that Progressives are just “Americanized” Communists. So how is it that the Progressive has NOTHING in common with the Libertarian??? Finally, I have told you that John Stuart Mill — a LIBERTARIAN HERO — was a FABIAN SOCIALIST (i.e. cousin of Progressivism). You MUSt refute this (if you can) BEFORE you can make this denial of the Liberal/Progressive connection to Libertarianism. Otherwise, you are just practicing Progressivism: state a lie as truth and hold the line until others accept it.

Joe: I don’t use the appeal to authority, which as you know is considered a logical defense, but is not one that I respect. Having said that, in addition to holding an M Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, I am an ordained Baptist minister and an ordained Presbyterian Elder. I have studied and preached from the passage in question any number of times. I’ve also studied the works and writings of Rabbi Hillel, whose version of the admonition I prefer. The idea of treating others as one would prefer to be treated or not treating others as one would prefer not to be treated, were new concepts in the lifetimes of Hillel and Jesus, which are believed to have overlapped. While they do not align perfectly with the libertarian concept of limiting one’s personal freedom to the point where it infringes on the freedoms of another, I’ve always regarded them as conceptually similar. You may not, which is fine. I certainly don’t regard my exegesis as inconsistent with the passage’s intent, but again, you may. I respect your studies of Scripture and I make no claims to perfection in this area.

On the issue of whether Jesus was a “Communist” or a “Marxist,” I’ve studied what we have of the teachings of Jesus in both the canonical Gospels and the pseudepigrapha, and I don’t find any evidence of such a connection. Jesus’ Gospel involved a radical redefinition of who one’s neighbor actually was and he spoke about caring for the poor, the downtrodden, the weak and the hungry and in His ministry demonstrated care for them all. But Jesus very specifically denied any interest in becoming involved in political issues. As you know the first church at Jerusalem attempted under the leadership of James, the brother of Jesus, to follow a primitive form of Collectivism in which all food and shelter were shared, as did the Pilgrims in Massachusetts. Both groups almost died before the Apostle Paul rescued the Jerusalem church and the Indians rescued the Pilgrims. Both groups returned to a primitive form of capitalism and we have no evidence of further problems.

On the difference between movement libertarians and single-issue libertarians, you are absolutely right! Our hope is that as the single-issue folks establish families and find jobs, neither of which is easy right now, if it ever was, they will discover life can consist of more than bongs and “really good shit” at which point they may be interested in exploring the true faith. We certainly welcome them to explore and embrace libertarian ideas, but until they do I’m not sure they are actually libertarians. But we have the ultimate big tent, so maybe libertarian evangelism has a future.

I get the impression you already know this, but for the benefit of those who may be reading along who do not, I want to make it clear that i do not consider these exchanges between us to be hostile. In fact, I am quite enjoying them. 🙂

OK, CDE, my turn to get aw wordy as you LOL 🙂

“Your second point about “community standards” frightens me, because although I suspect you and I share common moral standards, I live in the New York City area, and I don’t regard myself as having a lot of common ground with the people who elected Sandinista Bill De Blasio.”

It’s time for you to put on your most neutral, strictly logical and intellectually honest hat for a moment. IF you believe in Liberty, and you agree that governments are established to protect rights, then how can you say that a community does not have the right to establish the society it chooses? This is one of the most fundamental assertions in the Declaration, and the principle upon which the founders claimed the right to secede from Britain. So, where you and I may agree as to what liberty means, if we are the only two who think that way in a society where EVERYONE else thinks like our resident Marxist, Karl, what ‘right’ do we have to demand that EVERYONE else live according to our ideal? The same system of Natural Rights says we do not, as that would require we — the minority — must use force to compel the rest of society to our will. NO! The only option — the option our founders intended — is for you and I to move to another community where we fell more at home.

Now, the problem we have here is, as the nation has fallen more and more under the control of authoritarians, the nation has been forced to become more and more centralized. This is because the authoritarian refuses to accept the failure of his ideas. Rather than learning from their failures, they push their ideas onto larger and larger segments of the population so as to support their failures a little longer. Eventually, this condemns the entire nation rather than the community. It is ONLY at that point that you and I can rightly claim the Natural Right to use force against those who demand we join them in their suicide. So the question now is, have we reached that point yet?

“Joe: The age of majority will always be somewhat arbitrary and will be culturally driven”

And with those words, you actually make the point I was making about communities having a right to set their own standards. Remember, you still have your logic hat on, so I hope you will see the point I have been trying to get you to acknowledge. We CANNOT frame things strictly in terms of the individual a the individual is only a part of society. This does not mean I see society as having rights. You know I reject that notion because society is an artificial construct. But CITIZENS ACCEPT a duty to society by agreeing to live in a given society and share in whatever benefits it affords them. And THERE is where the restraints on our liberty comes in — with our duty to society. BTW: The founders said this. They are where I got the idea.

“Joe: I never mind apologizing when I actually make a mistake, and I remember doing so in 1976…no need since then. But seriously I don’t see where I’ve ceded anything, so please enlighten me here and I’ll respond.”

OK, keep that LOGIC HAT on — tight. Now fallow me.

IF it were possible to achieve Communism as Marx described it, that would be a true “Libertarian” society — as YOU have described it. Never mind that it is not possible. The Communist ideal is the issue here. So, in this sense, if Communists choose to call themselves “Libertarian,” then they meet your requirements — per YOUR definitions. This means they and the Libertarians DO have much in common. Same for the Progressives. The IDEAL is what is in question. I say that because, in practice, the Libertarian IDEAL is as impossible as the Communist. And there is the catch-22 I think you have been missing in all of this. It is why I invoked the name of John Stuart Mill.

“Joe: I’ve studied every major school of economic and political thought since the Greeks and the Egyptians, and I’ve never found a more consistent or consistently logical movement than libertarianism.”

CDE, in your original comment, you made contradicting statements in point 4 and 5. So I am at a loss as to how you now claim Libertarianism to be “consistent.” I can only assume you are trying to redefine it in the same way Don has been trying to redefine Conservative. The founders tried the Libertarian model AND IT FAILED! The most sustainable system man has ever tried is that of the Classic Liberal in the school of Locke’s version of Natural Rights. The founders were NOT new to the model. It was done by the Saxon’s and the Hebrews. But you will NOT find an example of Communism ever working, and neither will you find an example of Libertarianism in practice. To do that, you have to start playing with definitions, and that is fallacious reasoning.

As to the passage of Scripture we are discussing: if you had spent any time reading my blog, The Road to Concord, you would know I hold a very similar view of liberty to yours. The difference between us is that I recognize society requires limits that you seem to reject. But my idea of liberty comes from Scripture. Locke derived his notion of Natural Law from Romans. But there is the connection to Christ telling us to treat others as ourselves. If He meant not to do to others what we would not do to ourselves, then this leaves all manner of evil that can still be done to others. How many people harm themselves of their own free will? You know there are many examples we could both cite. So, was Christ telling us it is OK to hurt others as long as we have hurt ourself the same way? I don’t think so. But if He was telling us to put others first as we naturally put ourselves first, then his words take on a different meaning.

I see the distinction here as very important. First, since you apparently DO know Scripture, my interpretation is consistent with Christ’s repeated message to put others first. But if we are to just do to others what we would like done to us, that does not mean we have to or even should put others first — not necessarily (logic sense of necessary). Now, look at Christ’s commands. Many have argued Christ’s Gospel message is Communist. It is not! But those who have not read Scripture CAREFULLY will be easily fooled by those who cite the proper passages of Scripture. Christ’s Gospel is very close to the CLASSIC LIBERAL’s ideal of liberty — BECAUSE IT RECOGNIZES DUTY TO OTHERS AND SOCIETY!!! Those who see Communism in the Gospel not only miss this, but they also miss the right to property and individual ownership of labor (both were ordained by God, as you know).

Now, I could be wrong, but this is why I have a different take on that passage about treating others as ourselves.

BTW: as an aside, I have been studying what Scripture tells us about how to treat the poor. I find that what Christ taught is VERY different from what we think it means today. First, Christ did not have all that much sympathy for those who did not want to accept their end of social duty. Remember the crippled man at the pool. Christ had to walk by many who were also crippled as they collected there. And when He met this man, Christ asked him if he wanted to be made WHOLE — not wanted to walk. In that society, Christ was asking if the man wanted to become a citizen. That would mean getting married, working and providing for himself and his family. I mention this because Scripture tells us to care for those who are truly helpless in the society they live. Even then, all we are told to do is feed and cloth the needy, and maybe care for the ill and visit those in prison. FROM WHAT I HAVE READ, all else is “want” — not “need.”

Now, I say all this not to get out of my duty to others, but to discover the line where Satan has deceived the saints into thinking they owe much more than they do, thus placing a crushing burden on them — fiscally and emotionally.

With all Due respect Charles………… the issue can be defined quite clearly.

Libertarians are ALREADY hostile to Conservatives … it is a Fait accompli. Libertarian today ( Not it’s antecedents) is merely a Place and a label of refuge for those Liberals who don’t want to be identified as such or who have a Mild disaffection with the Democrat Party at present ( mostly the Youth but some Blue-Dog Democrats ).

Thus , even though they may not vote Democrat this election cycle or the next …. their weight will be cast effectively Pro-Liberal, Pro-Socialist and decidedly ANTI-Conservative, ANTI-GOP. Libertarians are Proponents of Progressive Policies and do NOT SEE Progressives as their enemies………….. They see the Tea Party as their enemy, Reagan Conservatives as their enemy…….. While chanting references to the Constitution.

THIS IS WHY the Virginia Governor’s race was/IS so important. The Cuccinelli LOSS tells America ALL it needs to know about Libertarians

Don: With all due respect, I am part of the libertarian movement and know many of the most visible leaders. As I said in an earlier post, not everyone who tries to call him or herself a libertarian is a libertarian in terms of what they actually believe. And given real libertarians don’t seek office as “Libertarians” recognising those who are Liberal/Progressive plants sailing under a false flag is not that difficult. We all knew Cuccinelli’s “Libertarian” opponent was not a libertarian and tried to get the word out before the election. Rand and Ron Paul made multiple visits to Virginia and all of us were frantically emailing and blogging to let people know the whole thing was a fraud. If I thought the GOP could win without the libertarian vote in 2014 and 2016, I would not be so concerned but I am not sure and so I am. I’m going to try to work with some other libertarians to create a more reliable way to recognize and out Liberal/Progressive plants before 2014. Hopefully that will work. It is the fringe libertarians, the pot smokers and similar characters who will need the most attention, but hey, Obama empties the insane asylums and had aides pulling the levers for catatonic patients in 2012. This election is two important not to do everything we can. CDE

Perhaps it is my obtuseness to Convention or perhaps my Rhetorical style …. but I understand your “division” within the larger Political space currently calling itself the Libertarian movement.

In short I understand your predelections for and affection for “the Antecedents” ( as I called them above) of the American Liberty movement culminating in the War of Independence.

What I am addressing is the Mass ( I believe Karl the Kommitted Kommie would call them ‘the masses’) of people who VOTE……specifically vote for “Libertarians”. Because that is where the ‘rubber meets the road’.

The Virginia elections prove that either the Libertarian Movement has been pretty much entirely Co-opted by the Liberal/Democrats…..or that Libertarian Leadership has both no control over nor any sense of who and what constitute the “Libertarian” base………………….As such I maintain that this Mass of Libertarian base votership is currently a Destructive Force acttively acting against the vry Ideals you and I and both Pauls hold dear.

Don: You make an excellent point and one that has concerned me for a while. While libertarians probably make up 4 – 5% of the American electorate, working with us is like herding cats. I am planning to speak with several of the key national leaders in January about how we can avoid a repeat of the Virginia fiasco, which you know the details about. Because of our emphasis on individual liberty and freedom of expression, there really has been no national leadership, per se. Rand and Ron Paul are the most visible, but libertarians like Charles Murray, Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, Anthony Nappolitano, Richard Epstein and others could be very helpful in pulling together some kind of information network, possibly around REASON Magazine, which is an excellent libertarian publication that has a very good website. Something has to be done because I’m not sure the GOP can defeat enough of the Progressive Democrats without most of the libertarian vote. My club in Manhattan, the Union League of New York, was started to support Lincoln and the anti-slavery cause during the Civil War, and although we have strong ties to the GOP, at least 85% of our members are libertarian in terms of our personal beliefs. Every Republican President since Lincoln has been a member and we have sister clubs in Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Chicago. I’m even looking for a way to tap those connections as well.

I really do think the 2014 and 2016 elections could be a watershed for American and we both know the Progs will try anything that might help them win. By the way, I also think that libertarians and the TEA Parties have a lot of common ground and I’ve been thinking personally about connecting with the local chapters, because I think the GOP Establishment is going to stupidly attack the TEA Parties and that will be a serious mistake. I know where I come down on that one and its not with Mitch McConnell or John Boehner. It is unfortunate to some degree that the GOP is going through a generational and philosophical transition just as this critical confrontation with Our Dear Leader and his Progressive hordes (did I spell that correctly) is about to happen. I think we all must do what we can to bring down our common enemies. We can sort out the fine points in the White House in 2016!!! Regards, CDE

Come on, are you telling us that you are surprised by the government-sponsored insertion of propaganda by means of third party persons (i.e. useful idiots)??? You know very well that propaganda is a hallmark of the Fascist regime, and we most definitely live under a modern form of Fascism.

Joe: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, my friend!!! I am not surprised in the least by Obama Trolls emerging all over the Internet, and especially on Facebook. The Obamites see social media management as a major area of strength for them. What I’m having fun with is coming to understand their fingerprints and then calling them out online. They are not all that bright or articulate, and once they are being told what they actually are, most offer weak resistance and then disappear. It is the intellectual equivalent of a baby seal hunt!!! And of course, Progressivism is the American branding for Marxism or Fascism, all of which are sprung from the same vile tree. But don’t deny me my occasional entertainments, Joe. I never hurt them permanently, and maybe some even begin to think about the implications of their sins. OK, that last comment is a reach. I encourage all my libertarian and Conservative friends to join the Hunt, since we are already paying many of these shills on the Obamacare Propaganda Budget. Regards, CDE

I’d never deny you the fleeting entertainment of pulling the intellectual wings off of the Progressive flies you find on line. But it is just that: fleeting. Once you realize you are trying to engage unarmed individuals in a battle of wits,… well, it sort of looses its appeal — don’t you think? 😉

Joe: I’m not a cruel or harsh person, so the thrill of intellectual combat with those who harbor indefensible positions is a rare indulgence. And it is usually launched in response to some buffoonish Progressive bully attempting to attack someone with much thinner skin than my own. It’s a character fault I’ve had since childhood, and it hasn’t seemed to diminish with time. I believe it may be called Clark Kent syndrome. CDE

My friend, as a former marine, I am much more at fault on this issue than you will likely ever be. My first instinct — and it still gets the better of me far to often — is to kill them all and let God sort them out. Intellectually speaking, this can still be done. But I have come to realize that, if they do not realize why they are wrong, it doesn't matter how badly you pound them into the intellectual dirt, they won't realize that, either. But it can still be worth correcting them — as kindly as possible — if only for the sake of those reading along who might still be reached 🙂

Thanks for the caution. It could be said that there is certainly a level of deduction that goes into decoding these labels, as we know that some who claim to adhere to libertarian/conservative ideas, are little more than a right-of-center extension of the progressive wing. While my political philosophy doesn’t not quite stack up to either of you guys, I have not noticed anything outstandingly progressive in CDE’s writings. For that reason, my comment was out of encouragement to an ally over anything else.

Joe,

I definitely agree with your comment “sadly, I fear the majority of the time — people who claim to be “Libertarians” are actually liberal/progressives who want their ideas forced on others, they just want to be exempted from those laws.” My immediate exposure to libertarians has been to the progressive brand of libertarian. Your caution is noted.

I had my two College girls home for the Holiday’s read your comments. Because I wanted to show them what I considered to be an exceptional example from their Generation of someone who is articulate and smart. So there !

Your political Philosophy is far beyond average , believe me ! …. you also spell better’n-me.

“people who claim to be “Libertarians” are actually liberal/progressives who want their ideas forced on others”

How can you “force” freedom on others. Libertarians give you the option of smoking pot, but they don’t force you to. Isn’t libertarianism all about letting people do whatever they want as long as the respect private property.

Anarchy is “leave me alone to do what I want.” The problem is, where YOU do not think you are harming others, those who suffer the effects of that harm may disagree. Case in point:

Many Libertarians claim the right to an abortion is based in their right to control their body, and they are correct — UP UNTIL THEY MAKE ANOTHER BODY! But the unborn is NOT “their body,” so they then do what Libertarians ALWAYS do when they want their way: they start twisting logic to rationalize enforcement of their will on others. The unborn is another person, and the mother and father have no “right” to kill that person just because they do not want to bother taking responsibility for their own actions. And before you pull the rape and incest bill out on me, DON’T! The logic applies to those cases, as well. The only difference is, if it was a pregnancy resulting from a FORCED rape, then the mother did NOT have free will in the act. In all other cases, she did, and that means she has a responsibility to the child (so does dad).

I can also apply the same logic to homosexual marriage. If homosexuals claim a ‘right’ to marry, then they have no REASONABLE grounds to oppose polygamy or bestiality. The SAME ARGUMENTS homosexuals make to justify their lifestyle applies equally as well to these others. If you try to claim they do not, or to make some other moral objection, you have just ceded your case to those who claim homosexuality is deviancy.

And yet, for some reason, the majority of this nation has BOTH abortion and homosexuality forced on it — even by “Libertarians.”

Kells: It has been my experience that most Progressives are over-confident and less than brilliant, by a healthy margin. They know little about history, nothing about economics and they expect Conservatives and libertarians to break out in tears whenever they decide to get “tough.” To borrow an idea from one my heroes, Sir Winston Spencer Churchill, being attacked by a Progressive is like being savaged by a dead sheep. So yes, I do create frequent distress among Facebook’s Obamite community. Confronting the weakness of positions one considered impregnable has to be painful. But hey, they claim to be grown-ups, and grown-ups defend their positions or concede defeat. I’m not waiting for any concessions, but I do so enjoy making these arrogant bastards squirm. And the Obama Trolls represent a target rich environment. Happy New Year, CDE

Guys: Here is a not so novel idea. Learn to get along together as the founders did! Read the document that they produced. It entails the compromises they made to their their differing ideologies. And CDE you seem to be the one here that expresses the need for compromise. Thank you.

Compromise is the word used by Pelosi, Reid, McCain the socalled GOP “Moderates” and the rest of the Anti-Conservative crowd.
Do you mean Compromise on Gay Marriage, compromise on Legalization of Smoking Pot as the Libertarians are so adament equate with The Constitution itself? Do you mean compromise on Amnesty for people who have broken the Law and entered the US illegally ? Do you mean Compromise on allowing some in the US Business community to hire these illegals with impunity….thus ignoring yet more laws ?

And in fact I have read….and virtually EVERYONE who is or has been a regular Poster and/or Commentor Here HAS read the Documents and referenced them in Total or in specifics. Further, What the Documents you mention do NOT DO is Compromise on very basic principles. They in fact are a very specific outline delineating exactly What powers the Government had and didn’t have in order to NOT Compromise on our Basic Natural Rights. In fact with respect to “differing ideologies” at the time (!770s-1790s)…..that ideologie which believed in Big British Government and all owerful Aristocray and Divine rule of a Dictator… were NOT COMPROMISED on at all !…..their “ideology” is nowhere to be found in the Declaraction, the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights.

That would work — if only the founders had agreed in the sense you seem to be implying. They did not. The Constitution was only ratified AFTER the Federalists won the debate with the Anti-Federalists, and even then, ONLY after the Federalists agreed to the Bill of Rights. The process of explaining and debating the finer points was crucial to the ratification of the Constitution. It put everyone on the same page. This is what I believe is needed right now, what so many seem to want to avoid and why we are failing to get anywhere in our quest to restore the rule of law.

BTW: As it turned out, the Anti-Federalists have been proven correct on nearly every concern they voiced.

tripper: I think the idea of “compromise”” has fallen into disfavor among many American Conservatives and libertarians because it has been abused by our common enemies, the Progressives, along with the somewhat uninspiring rump-end of the establishment Republicans. There is very little that real libertarians and American Conservatives actually need to compromise about. Our main point of disagreement is about the limits of government power over individual freedom. We libertarians think government coercion of individual choices should be closely limited, since a change in government could, if government can interfere in individual moral choices, result in the imposition of an unacceptable set of new laws, such as Sharia Law.

Conservatives seem to prefer government to exercise moral authority in order to enforce a moral code that could be called traditional Anglo American Values. Since libertarians will never achieve our goal of allowing individual Americans to be responsible for their own choices, this is point of disagreement that is not existentially meaningful. Libertarians’ main goal at this time is to stop the Progressives’ continuing reduction of individual choice and free markets in the US, which means defeating the Progressives at the polls in 2014 and 2016. Since I think that is the main goal of American Conservatives as well, I’m not sure where the blockage is to working together against our common enemy. What am I missing here, friends? CDE

What you are missing is the VOTING Block of the public that Calls itself “Libertarian” …. it has demonstrated that it DOES NOT support Conservative NOR Libertarian values ( You define them…and perhaps the Libertarian Leadership you are acquainted with define them).

In short the Libertarian Voting Block ( base) is entirely different from the Libertarian Think-tank and Leadership.

This distinction is Crucial…………… It is somewhat like the Conservatives within the GOP realizing there was a HUGE difference between them (and the Founders) and the Reagan Rev and the RINO leadership and those GOP-drones that support them.

The Libertarian “Movement” needs to have a similar realization…..otherwise the Libertarian BASE will just continue to vote in a manor that ostensibly supports the Left.

No. Actually I am Down with his Definition for himself and his connections. What my comment addressed was his question. Which was a Good one. “What am I missing” he asked.

The “Missing” part is how he and his Libertarian Leadership friends and associates define Libertarian versus how the Voting Base define Libertarian for THEMSELVES…..and those two definitions do not mesh…….and that divergeance is found in the Libertarian Bases’ voting habits.

Quite simply they do not Vote as Libertarians….but as Liberals….the record is clear…..therefore there is a difference in what the Leadership thinks is the Goal and what the Libertarian Base thinks is the Goal…. Politically speaking.

OK, govt. should NOT impose a moral code on individuals. So no more laws against child molestation, rape, theft or murder. WEE-HEE! We can now rape, pillage and plunder at will. I guess you Libertarians are right after all. Now, lock up your women and children and hold on to your wallets. 🙂

Karl: Good comment that goes to a basic misunderstanding of libertarianism that seems to common among American Conservatives. It isn’t just that we want to be left alone to make our decisions about our lives, we want you to have that same right, free from government coercion. Our basic question is always whether one American citizen, in the exercise of his or her freedom, infringes on the freedom of another American citizen.. Hence, Joe’s straw man about pedophilia and rapists is easily addressed. Certain actions, murder, theft, rape, child molestation and I would posit abortion, are always violations of someone else’ s freedom, and hence can be codified as punishable by law by the government. But what I eat, drink, ingest, where I go, how I live, what healthcare I receive and how I pay for it are not the Federal government’s business. That is what libertarians mean by talking about individual freedom and the proper limits to government power. I don’t suspect many American Conservatives will disagree with that proposition, with the possible exception to the ” ingest” point. Our take on that is that recreational drugs are no different than alcohol and prohibition has only served to produce revenue for organized crime when it has been attempted. Of course those partaking of gin (Bombay Sapphire, please) or marijuana are responsible for their own behavior, but that’s what we think about any social activity. Interested in comments on this point! CDE

No Charles Your “:definition” and the Communist’s definition ( which you admit are the same, or very similar) are NOT equivalent to what MOST Conservatives would define.

But I think your response to Karl’s ( as usual misinterpretation of our Constitutional Republic) is illustrative and highly informational for those wanting to see a very basic Difference between “Libertarian/Liberal” views and Conservative ones.

Talk about pleading special case!!! If one claims a right to marry another person of the same sex, then by what rational can that same person oppose polygamy? They can’t — not if they want to remain consistent. And if they do not remain consistent, then they forfeit their claim to homosexual marriage.

Next, on what grounds do you first claim the right to do what you will with your body and then tell someone they cannot have that same right to control their body based on an arbitrary age that other people have set for them. You cannot support a “legal age” and STILL maintain your Libertarian arguments. By definition, telling someone they do not have rights or full rights because they are a minor is claiming the right to force your will on other people. And, NO MATTER WHAT THE RATIONAL, if you claim such a ‘right,’ then you have just ceded the same ‘right’ for others to tell you what you can and cannot do with your body in a given society.

Which then brings us to pedophilia. Since you cannot CONSISTENTLY claim a right to control your body and have sex with who you want and then deny that same right to people younger than you are, you have just ceded the ‘right’ of children and adults to have sex. So you cannot claim a Libertarian objection to pedophilia. In fact, there can be no such thing in the Libertarian lexicon — not by the reasoning you are giving.

Then there is the notion of “victimless crimes.” Many libertarians argue against prostitution and other laws they claim are “victimless.” The problem here is — again — pleading special case (and/or excluded or narrowed definition). If a John is married, then using a prostitute is NOT a victimless crime. His wife has contractual rights within the marriage, and he is violating those rights. The same can apply to gambling.

CDE,

You set up a straw man attack on my objection, and I hope it is due to an insufficient understanding of my argument rather than an intentional attempt to deceive.

1 — ALL law is based on the notion of what is right and what is wrong.

2 — Morality is the measure of a UNIVERSAL law of what is right and what is wrong.

3 — There can be NO SUCH THING as a universal moral law without a Creator (the founders stated this, too).

4 — Therefore, any JUST society will establish laws in accordance with God’s Natural Law (NOTE: this does NOT mean “Christian”)

5 — And any society that bases its laws on a sense of man-made right/wrong is doomed to fail. They always have and they always will.

My argument against the Libertarian ideal is that it is based on a man-made notion of right and wrong, as you just demonstrated. And this is why I will continue to object to the Libertarian ideal — because, at its heart, it advocates Anarchy.

Don: One of us may be schizophrenic or at least forgetful…probably me, although I do feel as if I’ve clarified this point a few times before. Marxism/Communism/Progressivism and libertarianism are completely opposed on every issue either side cares about. We(libertarians) are all about individual freedom. The Obamites/Marxists attack and destroy individual freedom wherever they can, every time they gain power, anywhere. I’ll address Joe’s interesting post in a moment, but libertarians are the philosophical shock troups of liberty and freedom!!! We believe we take the issue of individual freedom far more seriously than American Conservatives do today, because they have been repeatedly willing to compromise with the Liberal/Progressives to restrict individual freedoms and liberty, which our Founders viewed as God-given. Likewise, we support and do our best to protect private property and free trade. The Lib/Progs want all property and trade to be controlled or owned by the Federal government. Finally, we favor strictly limited government at all levels, while Liberal/Progressivism believes in government control and coercion as the solution to all of American society’s problems, despite the fact that has never worked anywhere it has been tried, and it has been tried everywhere at one time or another!!!

So there is no common ground between libertarians and Liberal/Progressives/Marxists/Communists/Fascists/ Nazis/Maoists or the Khymer Rouge!!! None, nada, zero, etc. If you want to accuse us of something, say we are anarchists, which isn’t true either, but at least we’re on the same side of the political spectrum with Guy Fawkes and his Gunpowder colleagues. Returning to a very large problem we have today in America, many people choose to take on identification with a specific group for reasons other than the fact that they share the group’s actual values. Obama called himself a post-racial, post-partisan, centrist in 2008 and very few questioned that label despite the fact that his very limited record in the Senate and the Illinois Senate was totally partisan, completely racist and Progressive/Marxist from his shoes up. A large group of pot-heads think libertarianism is all about smoking weed in public, and they know nothing else about our beliefs or values. One cannot today allow public figures to define themselves because they will inevitably choose to curry political advantage rather than providing an accurate description. As my Irish grandmother taught me at an early age, watch what people do, not what they say. Can I get an “Amen” ? Amen!!! CDE

“A large group of pot-heads think libertarianism is all about smoking weed in public, and they know nothing else about our beliefs or values.”

AH! But to exclude them from your “Libertarian” circle is to force your will on others. How very…PROGRESSIVE of you 🙂

See what I mean, CDE: when it suits your needs, you define things so that the conclusions ONLY fit your assertions. In logic, we call this a F-A-L-L-A-C-Y 😉

In truth, those pot heads can be as much “Libertarian” as you. Earlier on, when you first started, your definition would easily have included them. Now, when the flaws in your position have been revealed, you seek to narrow your definition and, i the process, you start to apply your will onto others. If the truth be told, Don is correct. many who are otherwise on the Left have claimed the label “Libertarian” simply because they do not want to have to pay the price for their Leftist ideals — NOT because they have renounced those ideals. A friend of mine once explained the majority of Libertarians as people who read and UNDERSTOOD an economics book. But that does NOT mean they also gave up their Leftist ideals.

ONE MORE THING, AND HEAR THIS VERY CLEARLY! There is NOTHING about the Marxist IDEAL and “Libertarianism” that is inherently in conflict!!! NOTE: I did not say Marxism in practice, but the ideal.

ALSO, HEAR THIS CLEARLY: The Libertarian ideal strongly aligns with the work of John Stuart Mill — a P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E-!!! That’s right, baby, one of the strongest political philosophers in the Libertarian camp was connected to the Fabian/Progressive movement! This is the primary reason I have always opposed the Libertarian ideal — because it is built on a man-made ideal of morality and liberty. Our founders’ was not, and therein lies a CRUCIAL distinction I have yet to hear ANY Libertarian acknowledge.

As the resident Marxist I have to comment on this
“There is NOTHING about the Marxist IDEAL and “Libertarianism” that is inherently in conflict!!!”

Libertarianism is very individual and “freedom” based. Their entire philosophy is about protecting the individual from coercion by anyone.

While Communism is about empowering the masses to coerce/control the means of production.
Libertarians believe in private property and collective control of property is absolutely abhorrent.
Communism is community based it is about giving the collective the right to act as a collective. It acknowledges the existence of the human collective. While most libertarians and conservatives would agree with Margeret Thatcher in her saying “Society does not exist.” Libertarians cannot imagine a world without private property. While Communism is the replacement of private property with social property.

Communism isn’t a moral system like libertarianism. Libertarians say that individual freedom = good, private property = good. the end. The use divine, natural law(both originating from man, because there is no divine lawgiver) theory to explain their moralism.
While communism is a theory of history. The theory relies on economic data and social history. Communism say, that the cycle of crisis in capitalism will get shorter and crisis more severe to the point that the proletariat will revolt and create a socialist economy.

I don’t think this is one hundred percent true. Instead of a proletarian revolt, I fear a Fascist reaction can happen. Under the creed of “protecting private property from the masses.” A reactionary clique might come into power, and enforce labor onto the proletarians, you are forced to go to work, but you still receive wages. The gulf between the rich and the poor is getting wider. This combined with campaigns funded by the upper class and a media dominated by the upper class. Will lead to the upper class interest dominating the government. What you all call “crony capitalism.” soon a handful of corporations will be the sole employers, campaign financers, and government approved monopolies. Private property will still exist, but under a few ruling class hands. then the tea partiers will understand the meaning of “protecting private property from the masses.”

We’ve been through this a Hundred times here before ….a “Proletarian Revolt’ is the Tool and Product of Fascism.

The Artificial separation of people into Classes, political factions and such is Marxist lingo……a mumbo-jumbo of assumptions that deflects from real events and real people. What Marx and his followers understood about human nature in its deepest sense could be written on a Postage stamp. The Marxists knew/Know about manipulating “emotions’.and manipulating Mobs…like Fear and Envy…..but that’s about it.

Charles you are perhaps doing what I claimed Joe was earlier……and that is you aren’t HEARING what I’m writing.

( A ) I understand that you Believe you support “Maximal individual Freedom” and that you THINK this is close to supporting the Foundations of American Constitutional Gov’t. And you Correctly view MUCH of what Conservatives believe to be the same. And it is.
BUT……BUT it isn’t ALL the same. And there are Crucial Differences. And your very descriptions of How you interpret what the Declaration and Constitution mean sometimes SOUND a lot like Liberal /Progressive /Socialist thinking. You are absolutely FINE in expressing yourself and Believing any way you want. You just have to understand that saying you believe in the Original Constitution and then claiming that that constituion somehow supports Anarchy(in the Classical sense)……or implying that the Highest form of Constitutional expression is in the dis-avowing of any Moral underpining supported by the State comes off to Conservatives as dangerously Contradictive…at best.

( B) The way the Libertarian Base VOTES, makes these differences a Scarey reality. Saying one agrees with the Founders and The Constitution as written, and then voting Liberal ticket across the Board….is the sign of Libertarians speaking out of two sides of their mouth at the same time…for Political expediancy. The divergeance between What the Libertarians CLAIM they believe and how they vote is stark and shows Conservatives (1) that Libertarians are purposefully decieving in order siphon off voters….and/or(2) that Libertarians cloak Liberal Goals and ideals within a cloak “legitimacy” by claiming they are True expressions of America’s founding Principles.

Actually Joe…..it is perhaps a “Rediscovery” that Goldwater and Reagan ( and their Movement and their Predecessors like Rose Wilder Lane et al) had of “Classical Liberlism”.

Their Self-identification as Conservative starting then was as a Distinction agaisnt the Socialist-Progressives. Remember that was about 83 years ago !!. So they were using the term to define Originalist Philosophy that the country was established on…..because at that time noone knew just had pernicious the Progressive/Socialist Cancer had become. Goldwater / Reagan continued in this vein…..and Cruz, Palin, Jenny Beth Martin and Mike Lee , Levin etc see themselves as continuing this fight,…..as do I.

I am thusly a conservative. ( you are too…U juss don’t know it yet…. :- ). ) The Group of folks I’ve listed would and do in fact hold fast to Classical Liberal ideals.

The Reason the Bush family and Karl Rove and those who blithly support the likes of McCain and his Cabal spew such vitriol AGAINST Conservatives is because the Bushes etc DO NOT believe in our Country’s founding principles.

No, I am NOT a “Conservative.” And neither is the Conservative movement you speak of the same as our founding ideology.

Conservatives embrace the strong military and law-and-order stuff the founders opposed.

Conservatives defend the rich, but the founders said the rich must be kept in check or they will take over the nation (I have the quotes if you want them).

You defend corporations, but the founders opposed them.

Conservatives claim corporations are private property and should be treated as such, but the founders said they are PUBLIC in nature and are thus subject to PUBLIC control.

Conservatives have no problem with businesses owning businesses, the founders made that ILLEGAL!

The founders would have never allowed corporations to donate to political campaigns, nor do I think they would have allowed people who could not vote in the election meddle in it (but could be wrong on that count). Still Conservatives advance BOTH!

Conservatives support things such as DUI check points, yet that is exactly the sort of unlawful search and seizure the founders wrote the 4th Amendment to prevent.

Conservative support what they call “reasonable” gun control, such as automatic weapons and explosives. However, the Founders used the term “ARMS” for a reason. They meant and and ALL military arms — because they meant for the people to be armed well enough to resist the government if (when) it became necessary.

So tell me again how your Conservatism is the same things as the founding ideology of America. I must have missed something.

Joe: It is a rainy Sunday afternoon, and I had plans to make significant progress in P.J. O’Rourke’s new book, BABY BOOM, which by the way may be his best ever, which is a very strong statement. But duty calls, as you and Don will not leave me alone on the individual freedom issue. I remind you that you fellows brought this on!!!

I see no reason why a parliament of whores.called the US Congress is better qualified than I am to make decisions about the personal decisions I need to make in my life. To assume that the US Legal Code is at this point within 4-standard deviations of anything God inspired is a bit of a stretch, like maybe a million light years or so. The US Constitution, the Declaration and the Bill of Rights are certainly based on Biblical or Judaea – Christian values and principles. But the same Bible was for 1600-years used to justify slavery, ancient dietary restrictions and the”fact” that the earth was flat and that the sun was somehow suspended in the heavens, with a physical Hell in the basement. In other words, every law is based on human interpretation and subject to the limits of human rationality, Even those who try to follow Biblical principles in creating laws for a society get things wrong fairly frequently, so assuming a government will better understand what is right for me or my family is a very difficult idea to take seriously.

The idea that we should not do unto others that which we not have them do to us, makes perfect sense and that is what we libertarians believe. I’m not sure, but I think both Jesus and Rabbi Hillel said the same thing, so yes, libertarian principles are based on the words of the Founder of Christianity and possibly the most insightful spiritual leader in Jewish history. Not too shabby! Now on the issue of codifying those ideas into laws for a given society, libertarians are also the model of understanding and cooperation. While I think most us, other than the pothead contingent, are perfectly capable of understanding the notion that my freedom cannot impinge on the freedom of another citizen, we realize that half of all Americans are below average intellectually, and so laws are required to force all citizens to do what a rational American would do on his or her own. Fine. So any law that prevents one citizen from coercing, robbingJohn: Actual libertarians knew a month ago that the “Libertarian” candidate was not a libertarian and we did our best to get the word out. One of the clues was that real libertarians would never run as a 3rd party candidate and would never, ever set up a win for a Liberal/Progressive by dividing the GOP vote. We also began hearing the faux Libertarian candidate was an Obama plant with support from a Soros front group, which all turns out to have been true. Why the GOP didn’t pick that up is a mystery. What this should teach us is that libertarians will likely be the swing vote for the GOP in a lot of states and we need to avoid a repeat of this new Liberal/Progressive strategy or it will hand the Obamites more elections. 2014 is much more important than yesterday, and we now know the level to which Our Dear Leader will sink to win. He is truly the Bernie Madoff of American politics. or otherwise injuring another citizen is legitimate and, in addition to merely codifying libertarian policies, such laws will tend make society more safe from its own predictors, given those laws are enforced. If that was what the Federal government did, I would have no complaint, and you and I, Joe, would not have these interesting discussions. But we both know that is not what laws in America do today. Under Obamacare I would be forced to pay more for my health insurance than is actuarially justified, I cannot see the doctor of my choice or receive the treatment or drugs my doctor prescribes and I am required to pay for the care of other Americans who I do not even know, but who have chosen not to provide for their family’s healthcare needs. Obamacare is an American law that violates the US Constitution, violates my right to religious freedom, and requires me to subsidize late term abortions, which I regard as murder of the foulest type and which violates my economic freedom under the “takings clause”

“The idea that we should not do unto others that which we not have them do to us, makes perfect sense and that is what we libertarians believe.”

And so, the Progressives are “Libertarians” after all. So why have you spent so much time saying they are not? So long as they claim that ‘liberty’ requires equality, and they are willing to share in establishing that equality, they have just met your definition of “Libertarian.”

Now, I think you owe Don an apology.

“so yes, libertarian principles are based on the words of the Founder of Christianity and possibly the most insightful spiritual leader in Jewish history…”

Ah, no, not so much. Once again, John Stuart Mill is among the leading ‘Libertarian’ political philosophers, yet his work has more in common with Thomas Hobbes than with Locke (who derived his ideas from the book of Romans). You may assert the Judea/Christian heritage of the Libertarian movement, BUT IT DOES NOT HOLD! The Libertarian movement is a secular alternative to the philosophy you keep trying to equate it with, CLASSIC LIBERALISM (before the Progressives, just ‘Liberalism’).

“we realize that half of all Americans are below average intellectually,”

Don, count this one as an admission by CDE to his ‘Liberal/Progressive” tendency. This is EXACTLY the “assumption” of the elitist authoritarian, and he just asserted it with bold pride. What’s more, he committed a fallacy in doing so. If “Most” Americans are below “average” intelligence, then what is “average” about it??? 🙂

CDE,

The problem you have with all your mental gymnastics here is that, for you to tell those Leftists they are not and cannot be “Libertarians” means you have to reject the very “libertarian” ideal you are trying to define and defend. And if you DO accept them, then you have to deal with the fact that they define “liberty” differently. For them, they cannot be free unless they are free from need, and that to be free from need, EVERYONE should be happy to contribute to the minimum income of all in society. And with that, your entire argument – EVERYTHING you have been trying to do in this thread – goes down the toilet.

You painted yourself, with your own words, into a catch-22. To deny the Leftists claims to being “Libertarian,” you deny your own definition. And if you allow them in, then you deny your own definition. But don’t feel bad, I did this same thing to the dead on my philosophy department. He was a Libertarian, and did his doctoral work in Mills (for that reason). And I once defeated him in open class with this same argument. So I know I stand on VERY solid ground in my critique of “Libertarianism.” It is because I have had very learned and life-long Libertarians (more than one) admit they have no answer to the challenge I just presented to you.

[BTW: I love the gratuitous straw man attack on Scripture, about how it supports slavery and that the earth is flat. I suppose, by the logic you just asserted, then the Constitution DOES uphold the federal government’s authority to do all manner of things to which you object. But to me, to someone who has actually read the Constitution — and the Bible — we realize these things for what they are: either honest or deliberate mistakes. But when someone who claims to know better attacks Scripture in such a deliberate way in defense of a secular political system, well… Let’s just say you have affirmed MY argument in a much stronger way than I suspect you realize or can realize. 🙂 ]

“…Don, count this one as an admission by CDE to his ‘Liberal/Progressive” tendency. This is EXACTLY the “assumption” of the elitist authoritarian, and he just asserted it with bold pride. What’s more, he committed a fallacy in doing so. If “Most” Americans are below “average” intelligence, then what is “average” about it???…”

THANKS Joe, …. yes Academic Elitists are rarely able to cast off the shackles of “Group-think”. And that Group-think has been pro-Statist and Pro-elites for a very long time.

So much has been muddied by the Shear volume of “words” throughtout this discussion.

But the Political reality is that whatever is Claimed to be Libertarian’s Thinking…..their VOTING is no different than the Obama lefists camp. And THAT is the reality we have to face going into the 2014 Midterms so as not to be “Hoodwinked” by folks claiming to be Constitutionalists who then vote the Liberla agenda..

You’re welcome, but I would also advise caution for you. Where CDE’s primary problem is he is trying to define for others what his “Libertarian” movement believes, so to do you try to define what it means for “Conservatism.” To be fair, Progressives do it, too. We all have the tendency. But my stand has always been that these terms DO have definitions, and THAT is what we should be defending — the language.

In the case of the Progressive, WILSON said it was an “Americanized” form of Communism.

For the “Conservative,” BURKE said it applies to ANY government trying to hold to what it has. As the U.S. hasn’t operated under original intent for nearly 100 years, to claim “Conservative” means “Original intent” is deceptive — especially given that many “Conservative” values are actually opposed to those of our founders.

As for the “Libertarian,” this is more difficult, and for the very reason I have tried to explain to CDE. The “Libertarian” movement has ALWAYS been a collection of individuals who reject any form of labeling. The people who claim the label “Libertarian” run the gambit from far Right to far Left. In this sense, they are Anarchists. But, when I was in college and worked with die-hard Libertarians, I discovered they are mostly an attempt to “rescue” Classic Liberalism from religion. In this sense, they are Hobbesian in nature (think French Revolution).

The Classic Liberal (formerly just Liberal — before Progressives destroyed the definition) believes in individual rights and liberty protected by the rule of law — NOT “democracy.” Most Classic Liberals I have read peg their rights and liberty to some notion of a Creator — even Voltaire did this. As such, the Classic Liberal admits to the necessity of SOME moral legislation. This is because they RIGHTLY understand that a free and self-governing society can only exist if the people are moral, and morality can only come from a universal law-giver (i.e. Creator) and thus, the people control themselves for fear of the Creator’s judgment — not man’s law.

Anyway, I am positive that most will disagree with this, but I would love to hear a rational argument as to how and where I am wrong that is pegged to historic observation 😉

There IS no rational argument pegged to historic Example that Liberals / Progressives and their Libertarian sidemen can profer to reject the necessity of a Moral underpinning to Government. Man’s law has failed at every turn and continues to fail as our current judicial morass clearly shows.

Conservatives today DO MEAN original Contitutional / Bill of Rights as both intent and execution. I beleive Jenny Beth Martin would say as much. As would Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and Louie Gohmert and the like. NONE of these or likeminded folks consider themselves Burkean. They (We) want to Preserve the Constituion/BofRs as written and intended. Which of necessity will involve a strong amount of RE-Establishment. Levin and Beck for example advocate for the repeal of some of the Subsequant Amendments and for the abolishment of many “Agencies” in order to align with the Original Documents and their actual intended power distribution.

RINOS and Establishment Republicans are the ones who would and DO argue for the status quo….they are the ones who claim the “Rule of Law” is based on all the UNCONSITUTIONAL Laws passed by the SC and the Quasi-Gov’t agencies established in the past 100 years you mentioned. They are also the ones who are spewing hate-speech against “Conservatives” along with the Liberals and Libertarians.

You are equating the True Conservatives I desribed in my second Paragraph/Sentence with this RINO group.

Look, you once told me I am not hearing you — but I am! You are trying to define Conservative to mean the same thing as Classic Liberal. then why not define Progressive to mean Conservative? Or can’t you see what I am trying to get you to see?

You are looking to change the definition of something just to suit your purposes. This is what the Progressives did to the term “Liberal.” I could tell you I am a Liberal and, therefore, am in perfect alignment with the founders, but you would reject that claim because you have come to accept Liberal to mean Progressive. It does not. The Progressives just bastardized the language. The same applies to Conservative. I do not give a rip if you say you are not a Burkian, his is the definition that counts. Otherwise, you have just jumped off the deep end of the “post modernism” pool where everything is relative and nothing has a fixed meaning. If you want to swim there, I will drag Utah into this one and HE can wail on you for a while as that is one of his pet peeves.

So understand me clearly — PLEASE! The language is crucial as it defines what we are saying. If we do not have a common understanding, then we might as well be trying to re-build the tower of Babble — AFTER God confused our language [reference intentional as it hits to the heart of the matter here]. “Conservative” has a definition, and Burke wrote it. Progressive has a definition, and Teddy R and Wilson wrote it. So, if you call yourself by one of those terms, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE!

However, if you want to claim the founders’ mantle, then call yourself by their political ideology: CLASSIC LIBERAL!

Otherwise, your dog is actually a cat because I say so, and if you disagree, that makes you a CATO (like RINO), and you are not actually a cat (dog) lover and should be pushed out of our Party for it. Understand? If not, THAT IS THE POINT! And if you did understand that, then you belong with the Progressives 🙂 LOL

Joe: I missed this the other day, since you fellows have so many rabbit-trails branching off the discussion it is hard to keep up!!! I never engages on any attack on the Christian Scriptures, for which I have enormous respect. My point was and is that human attempted to use Scripture to support unsupportable arguments is in my view blasphemous, or at least eisegesis, or misreading Scripture to support one’s own purpose. At Princeton we called eisegesis the sin against the Holy Ghost!!!

As for your challenge, my answer is quite simple. Anyone can call him or herself a “libertarian” and I certainly will deny that person his or right to do so. Just like anyone can call him or herself a “Christian” or a “Jew.” But in both cases the label is virtually meaningless. It is one’s beliefs and actions that determine whether one is really a libertarian or a Christian or a Jew. I can’t judge anyone else’s actual beliefs, but I can observe how they live, vote or what ideas they support. On that basis, there are many claiming the libertarian label who are really something else, and there are many Christians who do not embrace the teachings of Jesus. None are mine to judge, but in the religious faiths, their will be a final judgement for each claimant. I hope that clarifies my view on these issues. CDE

There is a difference here. To call oneself a Christian means there is a set definition — specifically, Christ’s Gospel message. Now, true, people can purposely distort that message to their own purposes, but then, they are clearly NOT following the definition. And people can — in honest sincerity of intention — make mistakes as to what Christ meant. IN this case, they may very well still be Christian in the eyes of the Holy Spirit.

HOWEVER, the term “Libertarian” is decidedly MAN-MADE, and as such, subject to ever shifting definitions. In fact, if the Libertarian ideal is held consistently, then you have no real authority by which to judge how another uses the term for themselves since to do so would be a violation of that Libertarian ideal. THIS is the point I have been trying to help you see…and have failed to do.

Actually Kells I HAVE described the Party (as it represents itself in VOTING).

I haven’t made anything up…just quoted the Record.

It seems You and perhaps CDE….Don’t get it. We’re not talking about a Cocktail Conversation here. We’re talking about how the Libertarian BASE VOTES !!!…..That’s were it counts……and so far they have proven they Vote…..(1) Liberal and/or Democratic……or ( 2) that is the EFFECT of their Block votes.

I am only pointing out to you that power is an elixir regardless of the party. In other words; they may wear the hat that got them there, but they have been swept away by man’s ideology. This is my thinkin, anyway…..

Thanks, Charles! Happy New Year to you and yours! I hope you will be preparing your good luck meal?! Things have got to turn around, right?

I almost wrote a post on what I gather being a Libertarian means. I only have two friends who are proclaimed Libertarians, but are definitely left of center. The rest of my Libertarian friends are like Tea Partiers. My gut tells me the two lefties voted for the chosen one. I do believe that Don and B. flip out the most by the non-complacency to the social issues which Libertarians seem to espouse. The reality is that the govt. should have nothing to do with the marriage dept., as it is just another excuse for a tax. As far as drugs and food, I believe an individual should be able to discern what his own body ingests. Abortion should be illegal as it is unconstitutional, and involves a minor. Just some thoughts……

Joe: It is a rainy Sunday afternoon, and I had plans to make significant progress in P.J. O’Rourke’s new book, BABY BOOM, which by the way may be his best ever, which is a very strong statement. But duty calls, as you and Don will not leave me alone on the individual freedom issue. I remind you that you fellows brought this on!!!

I see no reason why a parliament of whores.called the US Congress is better qualified than I am to make decisions about the personal decisions I need to make in my life. To assume that the US Legal Code is at this point within 4-standard deviations of anything God inspired is a bit of a stretch, like maybe a million light years or so. The US Constitution, the Declaration and the Bill of Rights are certainly based on Biblical or Judeau – Christian values and principles. But the same Bible was for 1600-years used to justify slavery, ancient dietary restrictions and the”fact” that the earth was flat and that the sun was somehow suspended in the heavens, with a physical Hell in the basement. In other words, every law is based on human interpretation and is subject to the limits of human rationality, Even those who try to follow Biblical principles in creating laws for a society get things wrong fairly frequently, so assuming a government will better understand what is right for me or my family is a very difficult idea to take seriously.

The idea that we should not do unto others that which we would not have them do to us, makes perfect sense and that is what we libertarians believe. I’m not sure, but I think both Jesus and Rabbi Hillel said the same thing, so yes, libertarian principles are based on the words of the Founder of Christianity and possibly the most insightful spiritual leader in Jewish history. Not too shabby! Now on the issue of codifying those ideas into laws for a given society, libertarians are also the model of understanding and cooperation. While I think most us, other than the pothead contingent, are perfectly capable of understanding the notion that my freedom cannot impinge on the freedom of another citizen, we realize that half of all Americans are below average intellectually, and so laws are required to force all citizens to do what a rational American would do on his or her own. Fine. So any law that prevents one citizen from coercing, robbing, assaulting, murdering or doing any number of acts that impinge upon another’s freedom is consistent with libertarian principles. In addition to merely codifying libertarian policies, such laws will tend make society more safe from its own predators, given those laws are enforced. If that was what the Federal government did, I would have no complaint, and you and I, Joe, would not have these interesting discussions. But we both know that is not what laws in America do today. Under Obamacare I would be forced to pay more for my health insurance than is actuarially justified, I cannot see the doctor of my choice or receive the treatment or drugs my doctor prescribes and I am required to pay for the care of other Americans who I do not even know, but who have chosen not to provide for their family’s healthcare needs. Obamacare is an American law that violates the US Constitution, violates my right to religious freedom, and requires me to subsidize late term abortions, which I regard as murder of the foulest type. It also violates my economic freedom under the “takings clause” of the 5th amendment. That is what we get when the American government makes “laws.”

So I suspect we agree that laws made to protect one American citizen against the coercion or predation of another are acceptable to both libertarians and Conservatives. But what about laws that go beyond the protection of one citizen’s freedom from impingement by another. Can you support the thousands of laws that require me to make certain decisions in a way I find inappropriate? Why can’t I place a sign of my choosing on my own front lawn? Why do I have to file an application and pay a fee to make changes to my own property? Why must I comply with thousands of half-witted “laws” that restrict my use of my own property without providing just compensation, per the 5th Amendment? This is the crap that drives us libertarians crazy!!! And this is the Progressive state at work. These laws are about taking the individual’s freedom away and giving control of my life to dull normal government clerks with gravy stains on their ties. Don and Joe…are these “laws” things you both support? No? Then we agree that there should place limitations on the ability to create laws that impinge on my personal freedom!!! Are you with me thus far?

So we move on to the areas where you think the government should impose its coercive force to prevent individual citizens from making their own choices. Let’s start with same-sex behavior and marriage issues. On his general point that homosexuality and Lesbianism are “illogical” and that a man’s preference for a woman’s vagina over a man’s butt is natural, I agree 100%. I have never understood how women, the most beautiful creatures on God’s earth, could be attracted to men on a physical basis. We men are frankly often ugly, frequently smelly and possess entirely unwarranted ego problems. My female friends, who I prefer over any of you guys, tell me there is usually a complementarity and a basic biological thing happening, so OK. But the notion that men would be attracted to other ugly, stinky and ego inflamed men is beyond my scope. I know it happens, because I have many homosexual friends, who are generally good guys, but I don’t get it at all. I also agree with Phil Robertson’s other point, that while he does not understand homosexual marriage he will leave the Almighty to be the judge. As I read the Christian Scriptures, my understanding is that we are called to do exactly that. Judge not, that you be not judged, makes a lot of sense to me. So in my view there is no basis for the government to treat homosexuals differently from heterosexuals in terms of their being permitted to engage in civil unions. However I have two major differences with the supporters of “homosexual marriage.” First, civil unions are the recognition by the government that two people have joined themselves as a couple, while “marriage” is a religious recognition that is of a different order. Most Christian churches do not recognize same-sex marriages as acceptable at this time and no church should be forced by the government to do so. Some churches, like some states, do recognize same-sex unions as “marriages” and that is their business. My guess is that churches that support same-sex marriages will lose a substantial portion of their adherents, but only time will tell. That is speculation based on previous attempts by Mainline Protestant Churches to adjust their beliefs to emerging social trends. We’ll see. But on this issue the closing the deal argument is that if the government can force individual Americans not to marry who they choose, they will also be able to make similar laws when different groups control the government…like Muslims, for example.

The Prohibition argument is much easier. We tried Prohibition against alcohol when the Progressives under Woodrow Wilson controlled Congress in the 19-teens. What we accomplished was to make a lot of money for organized crime. People still drank, but in doing so they were technically breaking the law. The use of social drugs, whether alcohol or marijuana, appears to be a natural part of human life. Today, marijuana is illegal almost everywhere, but millions of Americans use pot on a regular basis. Why is alcohol an acceptable drug when marijuana (or LSD, or cocaine) are illegal for individual use? We both know that is purely because alcohol has a Western/European history while other drugs have different histories. Citizens who use drugs of any kind must be held responsible for their actions while under the influence, just as alcohol users are, but the current Prohibition against recreational drugs is having the same or worse effects as Prohibition against alcohol had in the 1920’s. Criminals are getting rich, and American citizens are being imprisoned for purely personal behavior. The current laws in this area make no rational sense to me, nor to most libertarians. I am a very light, social consumer of Bombay Sapphire Gin, so this is purely an issue of principle to me. But I think it is the right principle! CDE

So I have squandered my afternoon, but enjoyed this exchange thoroughly. Regards, CDE

“…Our take on that is that recreational drugs are no different than alcohol…”

SO pass the LSD! After all, it’s no different than alcohol, right? I mean, you can drop acid in a “responsible” manner; it’s just like drinking a couple beers.

CDE,

You attempt to justify hedonistic want without any responsibil;ity to the society which guarantees your rights and liberty is the problem. The founders understood and worked through this. Libertarians do not — and likely never will.

This is why your ideas do not work. It is why you can’t even keep the same group of LIKE-MINDED people in a Kibitz for more than a year, maybe two. And it is why YOURS is the flaweed argument, not mine.

Let’s talk on a sweet pussy………… cat in asylum in silly Russia. (where he didn’t wanna be….) I think what Charles and I are trying to point out is freedom. Let’s talk about our sweet little puss…….in boots. His intentions were Iceland or Brazil. He was stopped dead in his tracks due to passport denial by the govt. I ask you; what is spying and what is the truth?

Furthermore, I should like to know your take on a govt. that is supposed to be run by the people with the people being closed off. (Let’s not mix toasters here, as we are both very well aware of the daily NSA findings)

We the People are NOT AWARE of the Daily ( read by the Minute !) NSA findings…..that’s the Mega-mondo problemo isn’t it.

What Charles and you are refering is in fact not Freedom … but rather a concept gone awry….and THAT is what Joe and I are talking about. BUT….You and *the Chuck-man* intersect in important ideas with Conservatives and those Folks Joeski calls Classical Liberals. I think we all agree on that.

My take on the “gov’t” you describe is known by many names….Tyranny, Fascist, Communist / Socialist…..an Oligarchical Police State.

And, I am always open to, and would Luv to, Talk on a Sweet Pu ……err Potatoe…. I just don’t want to cause any Russian “Potatoe” Riots…. yah know…. ;- ) .

Don, you’re full of crapaola; you know every day there is a new story breaking on the NSA info leaked.

Oh, and what Charles and I are referring to is exactly what the founders did sans the social issues. Come to think of it……the founders didn’t include social issues, though, did they? If recollection serves me correctly (and I’ll grant you, it seldom does,) they grew hemp. Smart. Did they smoke it? Je ne sais pas.

I agree with your take on our current govt. While I cannot speak for Charles; would you then take me as an ally? (Choose carefully, young Padawan.)

Your ignorance is making a fool of you. The founders most certainly DID speak to social issues in their time. As to the importance of religion in government and which to which religion should be invoked in government:

Elias Boudinot (Served as President of Congress, signed the Peace Treaty of Paris to end the War for Independence, framer of the Bill of Rights, and respondent to Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason with The Age of Revelation).

“Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.”[7]

Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration and member of Continental Congress:

“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”

As to the necessity of teaching religion in public schools:

“Religion is the solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God.”
–Gouverneur Morris

As to the PROPRIETY of having laws against blaspemy:

“Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land.”
–Charles Pinckney

As to the idea that religion and government/law are intertwined and NOT “secular:”

“Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.”
–James Wilson

And to the idea that ANYONE can attack the Judea/Christian founding of this nation and still attempt to call themselves a patriot:

John Witherspoon
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Clergyman and President of Princeton University

“While we give praise to God, the Supreme Disposer of all events, for His interposition on our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of, an arm of flesh … If your cause is just, if your principles are pure, and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts.

What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.

Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country.”

See here, B., I must refer to the law (Constitution) as written, not the circumstances surrounding it during the time. My most humble apologies for mooning the internet with my ignorance! Quite frankly, I believe it be your fault as you have no shame in demeaning a good lady’s name!

Gentlemen: Compromise was necessary to produce The Constitution. Look at what came before, produced by the same generation as the founders. Why did one survive and not the other? The people that wrote that first try at governing our nation were evidently more libertarian in beliefs and fashioned a government that was too weak to govern. The second document established a stronger central government, why? Did these contemporaries suddenly change their beliefs? No, some wanted a stronger central government and compromised on their beliefs to produce a document that even the most libertarian could agree to. Look at how they handled slavery. From the document produced even the slave holders among them could see that slavery was going to end. Yes, compromise was necessary to produce the Constitution. It came about because the founders were willing to truly compromise for the good of the nation, not for some intermediary step on the road to political superiority for a party.

Gentlemen, the compromise I speak of is between the Libertarians such a Charles and the Conservatives, and non-Progressive Republicans. Our enemies are driving wedges between us so we will not coalesce into an effective force in opposition. It matters not how we differ, it matters how we are alike, and that we can work together against our political enemies for the common good of the nation and our founding documents. By the way there are just as many flavors of Conservatives as there are of Republicans and Libertarians. Some of each group is offensive to me.

But what SPECIFICALLY could the Libertarians Compromise on….the Conservatives Compromise on …..and same for the non-RINO ( progressive) GOP. What issues do you see as stumbling blocks??

For what it’s worth I don’t really view the Process nor the eventual outcome ( Constitution and Bill of Rights ) as products ofcompromise so much as evidence, put to paper, of the Ideals and issues they WOULDN’T compromise on. Such as the Ideals of the Sovereignity of the Individual and the establishment of a Governing structure that Protected, Preserved and fostered that Individuals Natural Rights. But maybe I am missing something in what you mean.

I would concur with Don. The founders did not compromise so much on principle as they did on how best to support and uphold those principles. This is why I mentioned the 3/5ths clause. Once you read the notes from the debate on that clause, you realize it was a trap for the South and a death sentence for slavery in this nation. It was the best “means” the founders could reach (there is the compromise) for the ends they wanted (and there is the ideal).

When I was earning my philosophy degree, I was the only “Conservative” student in the entire department. So, naturally, the few “Libertarians” were among my closest political allies. This is because the disciplined Libertarian is most closely aligned with “Classic Liberalism.” I count you among that number, though you have been slipping in the comments here. I know you disagree, but this is because you are ignoring the logic in your arguments — and in my objections. You passions seem to have gotten in your way. Still, out of respect for the natural alliance between us, I will not make a new post out of what follows. HOWEVER, I beg you to consider the words I have chosen for you as they come from one of the strongest Anti-Federalists among our founders. Thus, they come from a man most closely aligned with what you describe as modern “Libertarianism.” And as the closest ally you have, he is best suited to explain why and where I think you are missing the point. So, without further adue:

“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of freemen. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
–Patrick Henry

I have known many disciplined Libertarians, and nearly to the person, the main difference between them and the Classic Liberal is the embrace of religion as being central to the preservation of liberty. In deed, the typical Libertarian seeks to throw off any connection between religion and liberty. In this sense, the Libertarian is the European descendent of the enlightenment, and that branch of the family experiment into self-governance clearly failed. On th4e other hand, until it was taken over by the European step-children, the branch that our founders spawned succeeded — because it was pegged to the principles of religion. Noted the bolded words in both quotes. They are religious principles and not found in the Libertarian ideal which would argue for the opposite: the right to drink whatever you like and as much as you like, or to smoke it. The libertarian would argue for the right to spend as much as he likes and on whatever he likes. And virtue is definitely something the Libertarian opposes, as it is connected to sexual morality and propriety — especially in the founders’ time.

CDE, History has spoken very loudly and very clearly on this matter. The founders succeeded not because they were “Libertarians,” but because they were “Classic Liberals.” These are not the same. One is decidedly secular in naturte whereas the founders were most definitely not. And to hammer home the point, I leave you with another quote from Patrick Henry:

“…Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed…so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.”

Joe: I never ignore anything you say, even when it requires staying up late to finish reading it. I also try to choose my own words judiciously, since as Wittgenstein told us, words can be dangerous. The reason that libertarians seem close in our beliefs to the Classic Anglo American Liberals is that they are the sources of everything we believe. And since most American Conservatives acknowledge the same antecedents, I find very few real points of conflict between us. We are essentially engaging in dialogues that resemble the debates of Medieval Roman Catholic theologians, whose acceptance of the same basic belief structure required them to debate progressively more obscure fine points of Biblical hermeneutics and earlier theologies. I know my acceptance of most of your beliefs makes you a bit crazy at times, but I’m not being deceptive in any way.

Where we apparently do differ is that I am unwilling to allow the Federal government to make decisions for me on personal matters that don’t affect other American citizens. Frankly I don’t trust anyone else to do that to me, and I certainly don’t trust a government who insist on forcing condoms and the agenda of radical homosexual activists on my grandchildren. And that also requires that 12-year-old girls be provided with abortions with no parental knowledge or consent. Joe, these people are like Napoleon in ANIMAL FARM, when he removed the dogs from their mother and raised them to be his enforcers. I understand your conviction to the existence of community standards, but the American community has been hijacked by radical Liberal/Progressive/Marxists whose beliefs and policies are abhorrent to me. Hence my preference for the libertarian belief that government’s role in regulating society should be limited to those area where one American’s actions will impact another American, and otherwise the government should leave me the Hell alone. In the words of President Reagan and Milton Friedman, government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. Friedman actually wrote a short book by that title that I carry with me in my case, along with the Constitution, the Declaration, the Bill of Rights and Charles Murray short book, AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM. That’s just so I don’t begin to forget important things.

So to me, my friend, our difference is that you are willing to trust the government with your personal decisions and I am not. Otherwise there is not an issue I see where we really differ. Enlighten me on what I’m missing. In less than 1,000-words. Happy New Year!!! CDE

“So to me, my friend, our difference is that you are willing to trust the government with your personal decisions and I am not. Otherwise there is not an issue I see where we really differ. Enlighten me on what I’m missing. In less than 1,000-words.”

You started by saying you take everything I say seriously, then end with that statement?!?

CDE, if you read what I post and can still tell the RNL I trust the government to make my personal decisions, then I cannot enlighten you as to anything I believe — because you are getting something ENTIRELY different from what I write than the plain meaning in the words I use.

Joe: You raise a very interesting point here. While I suspect you agree with me that the choice of one’s religious faith is the most personal of all choices and that freedom of religion was an important area for our Founders, I would contend that the beliefs that had become central to Protestant Christianity by the 18th century are what made the Constitution possible, if not inevitable. The devolution of ultimate power from the Roman Emperors and Popes to the kings to the nobility to the common citizen did not occur outside the reach of Protestant beliefs. Even the Roman Catholics, who share many beliefs with Protestants, maintained an essentially authoritarian and hierarchical view of the world and supported the maintenance of absolute rulers as long as they acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Hence democracy and free enterprise, and especially free trade, which drove the economic success of America and England, did not develop in RC-dominated nations, which exhibited a propensity to move directly to Fascist or Marxist authoritarian models.

So the question emerges from your comment as to whether a nation can embrace the evolved principles of Protestant Christianity without embracing the religion itself? And can those principles be sustained against the challenge of political theories who claim to be atheistic, but who really replace traditional religious belief with the elevation of the government itself, and often a “Supreme Leader,” in the place of God or Adonai or any supernatural being? At this point my answer has to be that it seems difficult and history will tell us in the end. The most serious threat to America’s Protestant governing principles sits today in the White House, where Our Dear Leader is attempting to gather all political and economic power to himself. Anyone who has missed that effort has not been paying attention. These issues concern me greatly. CDE

It took me some time to understand this, and then, I only came to it when I abandoned the history book sand started reading what the founders actually said.

Much of the reason people think the founders wanted a secular government is because they openly objected to the notion that the Pope might gain control of our government. So the ignorant of today read those words and think they mean the founders sought a secular government. And that is because they stop with those words.

When I dug deeper, I found that the founders not only believed, they forcefully asserted that there is no liberty without the Christian faith — AS THEY UNDERSTOOD IT! Now, as they were mostly Protestant, this is what they meant (and said so). many of them went so far as to say anyone — ANYONE — who would attack the Christian faith COULD NOT be a patriot, but was an enemy to his nation.

Now, I can quote what these men said, but it would be to little avail. Those who already know this to be true need no further proof that I speak the truth, and those who do not accept it never will. So the only point I will end with that may be of use to those who know I speak the truth is to remind us all that the Protestant division in the Christian faith was an attempt to break from the yeast of the Pharisees that had crept into the Roman Catholic Church and return to the true teachings of Christ’s Gospel message. In this light, I see what I argue for is a break from the yeast of secular systems such as the Progressive movement and return to the formula that our founders used to build a successful nation — the same formula God, Himself, handed down to Moses. And I only say that because FRANKLIN said that is where the founders found that formula.

Joe: I think you have gotten my point on the connections between a very specific branch of Protestant Christianity and the nation our Founders built and protected via the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Very few people have taken the time to trace the evolution of Classic Anglo American Liberalism from the authoritarian regimes that existed almost everywhere else across human history. That our Founders brought together a nation that consciously protected individual freedom, free markets and limited government represented a break with everything that had been before. No kings (thanks to President Washington ), no privileged classes (until recently), and the idea that most aspects of the lives of Americans were theirs to decide, were all new to the civilized world. None of these new ideas could have matured into national policies without the background of the Reformed branch of Christianity. CDE

I understand that. I also understand that this point is what “most” (not all) Christians mean when they say this is a Christian nation. Properly understood, it also explains why the founders did NOT think they had created a secular government — because they just assumed the effects of religion would be inherent in the govt. as a natural part of those whom the people would elect to represent them. And it goes even further. The whole of the “American experiment” is so intimately entwined with our founding fathers’ understanding of Christianity as to be impossible to separate the two.

Now, since the record on this point is so clear and so irrefutable (should one bother to read it), why do you suppose so many claim it is not so?

Don and Joe – From your description of the Constitution Convention; every one attending came together with like thoughts on how to solve the problems the Articles of Confederation presented in effective governance. You see no differences in these delegates approaches to governance? There were at least five main factions in this convention. There was Madison and the Virginia Plan, Sherman and the Connecticut Compromise, Patterson and the New Jersey Plan, Hamilton and the British Plan, and Pinckney’s Plan. Read about each, yet none was completely adopted and some had no idea of enshrining rights of the people in their plans. Tell me again how these people were of one mind and did not compromise their “ideals” to produce the greatest government ever produced?

When have I claimed the founders were of one mind? I have read Madison’s notes on the Convention, so I am WELL aware of the problems they had. But I also see that Don is correct. Where principle was involved, they didn’t really compromise. Where they compromised was in how to preserve those principles as best they could. And even where it appears they compromised — as with slavery — they didn’t, not really. They set a “kill switch” in the Constitution to deal with the issue. I think we get lost in trying to identify the founders’ ideals. You say some had no plan to guarantee rights, and yet, they signed the Declaration. THERE is where the principles and ideals of this nation are found, NOT in the COnstitution. The Constitution is merely the “how” of this nation. The “what” and the “why” — the sould — of America are defined by the Declaration (which is why the Progressives have divorced the two documents — something John Quincy Adams said the founders NEVER expected would happen).

So I will ask you, Triper: if we compromise on things such as the most basic principles of individual rights and liberty, then exactly what are we trying to preserve other than majority rule? And do you remember what the founders called majority rule? They called it tyranny. And that is what compromise on the principles of liberty yields: tyranny.

I do think they convened with LIKE thoughts…..but not exact thoughts.
But the “plans” which mirrored what was already in place in Europe never got any serious attention and were quickly shelved. All serious attempts were to forge a DIFFERENT path from Hegemonic Aristocratic rule.

In fact I would challange you to show which “Parts” of those plans which “had no idea of enshrining the rights of people”, were included within even the Draft plans let alone the final Products.

But My Question to you was in earnest….WHAT exactly do you want to see compromised ?

From the Libertarians
From the Conservatives
From the NON-RINO Republicans
From the RINO Establishment GOP even…..although it is Ironic that THEY are the ones using BOTH the terms
“Compromise” and the term “Extreme” for Conservatives……and are the faction LEAST compromising about their positions actually.

Glad you guys think you have the only way. That every one that posts fits into some rigid box, defined by your vision. Have no idea what you should modify in your beliefs, that is for you to decide for yourself. I’m not negotiating with you for anything. Just as I am not negotiating with anyone else, but do know that your narrow views, as expressed here, of most of these groups allows for no negotiating. That’s fine if the rest of America believes as you. And you can force those views on the rest, and btw that is the negotiating stance of the current tyrant in the white house. You think the outcome of the next few years will be everything you want? Sorry, we already have a tyrant leading us. Don’t want to change his form of tyranny for yours.

No Joe, the framers of the Constitution did compromise. They however were willing to compromise their individual beliefs in governance for the good of the country. Unlike most politicians today that are willing to compromise the Country for their Party.

Ever wondered why Pinckney’s Plan seems to be the actual framework for the Constitution. And Don why were most ‘European’ solutions dismissed out of hand? Was Hamilton and others so out of touch with the delegates as not to have any influence? Evidently Hamilton compromised his beliefs, he signed the document. Yet there were those that would not compromise and walked out or refused to sign (55 attended 16 did not sign) the document produced. And Joe, those were mainly those that wanted a Bill of Rights in the original document. So all that produced this document were in favor of enshrining our rights in the document? I think not, and afterwards the only way of getting the document ratified was through the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. We the People forced that requirement on the government. Not, your freedom for the common man, writers of the Constitution. They did not think it needed included. They did produce the framework for an outstanding government. But thinking that the common man had rights above the government, I think that was a belief of the minority.

Hamilton advocated for a more centralized Governmental Structure as the wat to best IMPLEMENT the ideals of Liberty. He was no enemy to the basic COMMON ideals fought for.

But I asked that you show within the Pre-Plans and then the Final Products evidence of those Ideals NOT enshrining the convictions of Individual liberty etc..

Further , why do you not answer the very specific questions about….”compromise” ?? Each group we’ve mentioned you seem to think needs to Compromise I assume. Thus you must have an idea ( ideas) as to what those Issues are that need compromising on. Otherwise it begins to appear as if you arguing for a “Slogan” rather than specific political items current.

Put the issues forth, that political progress can be debated on and actioned upon.

Joe: We are a nation that was founded by a Judeo-Christian people. But our government is decidedly secular. Our founders were very religious people. They actually practiced their religion, yet the only mention of religion in the Constitution was a prohibition on any religious oath for office and the establishment of our right to a freedom of religion any religion. And congress’ prohibition to legislate any religious law. Why? Religion is a personal belief, and has no overt place in our government. Our founders evidently believed that the government should be secular. Where did they get this idea? Could it be the bible itself is the source of this idea.

You are conflating two different ideas. That of religious freedom and that of the Judeo-Christain Moral underpining of the very Foundations of our Governmental structure.

They are different ideas and do NOT in any way contradict one another nor are they evidence for the Check of one upon the other. One common mistake is the false claim that Religious Freedom meant ( and thus today means) Freedom FROM religion…..( and by implication freedom from a Larger Moral underpinning recognized in society partially through State legislation).

Don not confusing the two at all. Freedom ‘of’ Religion is exactly what i said as it is exactly what the drafters of the Constitution wrote. Did not imply in any form a mythical freedom FROM Religion. And it applies to ALL religions not just the Judeo-Christian heritage of the authors of the Constitution. If they had intended it to mean just a Judeo-Christian heritage do you think they would been negligent in expressing that sentiment. Or are you saying that the only religion with a moral code that you recognize are Christians and Jews? And I’m not speaking about Islam. Of the major Religions in the world that is the only one that seems incompatible with the others Religions in its Moral beliefs.

You are implying that Buddhists, Taoists, and even atheists have no moral underpinnings in their personal belief systems? The sentiment of the founders was that a moral and religious people were necessary for this government to survive. The government does not control that aspect of OUR Society. The society is Responsible for that training. The failure is not the Government or the laws, it is a failure of society. The government can not legislate morality, never has worked as society governs the moral atmosphere in the nation. If you think it can then you to are granting our government the status of God. Our government writes laws based on those morals. They do not write morals beliefs systems.

Take alcohol and drugs. You can make as many laws as you want trying to convince the population through a carrot and stick approach of the moral and physical dangers of their use without making a dent in the abuse of these substances. It is something that has to be taught by society through example. Saw an article yesterday that dolphins even abuse drugs from the puffer fish to get ‘high’. As far as homosexual marriage; Marriage is a religious rite not a civil right. At the time of our founding all marriages were performed by the church not the government. Only later did the government stick it’s nose in and perform Civil Unions, when it started thinking it was on the same level as God. All those laws instituted regulating sexual conduct between two consenting adults, did not end any of these immoral behaviors, from prostitution to homosexual activity. Why? Was society just not Judeo-Christian enough, moral enough or religious enough.

I found something from one of the founders that speaks DIRECTLY to my objection to the modern American Libertarian movement:

“Liberty is a word which, according as it is used, comprehends the most good and the most evil of any in the world. Justly understood it is sacred next to those which we appropriate in divine adoration; but in the mouths of some it means anything, which enervate a necessary government; excite a jealousy of the rulers who are our own choice, and keep society in confusion for want of a power sufficiently concentered to promote good.”